Al Gore Jr.
An Inconvenient Liar (TN)

and

Climate Liars Around the World

In Copenhagen this week liar Gore stated:

There is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.

However, the climatologist whose work Mr. Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,’ Dr. Maslowski said. ‘I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr. Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowksi as a ‘ballpark figure’ several years ago in a conversation with Mr. Gore. … Perhaps Mr. Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve.

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said:

“He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

Here’s Algore, citing the same lie during Senate testimony in January of this year: A 75% chance the entire polar ice cap in the North Pole gone in the summertime:

“Professor Wieslav Maslowski at the Naval postgraduate school in Monterey has calculated that there is an 80% chance that the entire north polar ice cap will be completely and totally gone in summer months in less than five years.”

This is one more embarrassing lie casting another shadow over the so-called climate conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which exposed scientists who manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming. Of course since these Moonbats can’t prove global warming they now call it “climate change” to conveniently dodge the facts.

Despite emails from the University of East Anglia that show global warming data was manipulated Tony Blair said it was urgent to act now.

“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity,” Blair said.

“Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.”

Socialists of the world to discuss their lie, complain about America, capitalism and attempt to blame the United States for something they can’t prove because it doesn’t exist. It’s all about more wealth distribution and stealing money from the US citizens to prop up the United Nations and third world dictators as well as fund schemes by Al Gore and his ilk to trade carbon credits for real money.

These people should be fed to the polar bears but would most likely be spit out onto the Arctic Ice after one bite. Indeed!

See Climate Depot for continuous updates on the Global Warming/Climate Change lie.

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (NV)

Remember when Harry Reid declared, “This War Is Lost” and the surge was eventually successful in Iraq? Well, Mr. Reid has topped his idiocy in fine fashion as FoxNews.com reported on his latest utterance in the debate over ObamaCare.

Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era. (Video Here)

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’ ”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who on the Senate floor read from this FoxNews.com article and asked that it be placed in the record, called on Reid to return to the floor and, if not apologize, at least explain what he meant. 

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., suggested Reid was starting to “crack” under the pressure of the health care reform debate. I believe Mr. Reid cracked a very long time ago.

“I think it’s beneath the dignity of the majority leader,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said. “I personally am insulted.”

It’s beneath the dignity of any sane human being and an insult to the American people. Reid should resign and the Senate should censure him as an added bonus.

Harry Reid needs a history lesson so let’s provide one:

It was Southern Democrats who mounted an 83-day filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. The final vote to cut off debate saw 29 Senators in opposition, 80% of them Democrats. Among those voting to block the civil rights bill was West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who personally filibustered the bill for 14 hours. The next year he also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Byrd still sits in the Senate, and indeed preceded Mr. Reid as his party’s majority leader until he stepped down from that role in 1989.

James Taranto at OpinionJournal asks:

How could such a thoroughly unappealing man have gotten so far in politics?

Reid offered no apologies for his statements:

 “At pivotal points in American history, tactics of distortion and delay have certainly been present,” Reid said. “They’ve been used to stop progress. That’s what we’re talking about here. What’s happening here is very clear. That’s the point I made—no more, no less.”

Reid added, “Anyone who knowingly distorts my comments is only proving my point.”

By printing direct quotes and displaying Reid’s own words we would point out to the dimwitted Senator that he alone distorted history and his statements prove he is dwelling somewhere below Whale dung.

Senator Harry Reid, Moonbat, indeed!

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

Sen. John Kerry (MA)

Barack Hussein Obama unveiled his new Afghanistan strategy this week, and in the nick of time Senator John Kerry arrived with a report claiming that none of this would be necessary if former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had only deployed more troops eight years ago. Yes, he really said more troops.

In a 49-page report issued this week by his Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Kerry says bin Laden and deputy Ayman Zawahiri were poised for capture at the Tora Bora cave complex in late 2001. But because of the,

“unwillingness” of Mr. Rumsfeld and his generals “to deploy the troops required to take advantage of solid intelligence and unique circumstances to kill or capture bin Laden,” the al Qaeda leaders escaped.

This in turn,

“paved the way for exactly what we had hoped to avoid—a protracted insurgency that has cost more lives than anyone estimates would have been lost in a full-blown assault on Tora Bora.”

The timing of the report’s release suggests that Mr. Kerry intends this as political cover for Mr. Obama and Democrats, and some in the press corps have even taken it seriously. But coming from Mr. Kerry, of all people, this criticism is nothing short of astonishing.

In 2001 the Washington establishment that included Mr. Kerry was fretting about the danger in Afghanistan from committing too many troops. The New York Times made the “quagmire” point explicitly in a famous page-one analysis, and Seymour Hersh fed the cliche at The New Yorker.

On CNN with Larry King on Dec. 15, 2001, a viewer called in to say the U.S. should “smoke [bin Laden] out” of the Tora Bora caves. Mr. Kerry responded:

“For the moment what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.”

The Rumsfeld-General Tommy Franks troop strategy may have missed bin Laden, but it reflected domestic political doubts about an extended Afghan campaign.

Remarkably, Mr. Kerry is now repeating those same doubts about Mr. Obama’s troop decision, saying that the “Afghans must do the heavy lifting” and that he supports additional troops only for “limited purposes” and wants the U.S. out within “four to five years.” Adapting his legendary 2004 campaign locution, Mr. Kerry is now in favor of more troops after he was against them, but in any case not for very long.

Kerry received an answer from Gen. Tommy Franks in a NY Times Op-Ed in 2004 (below) but Kerry still likes to think of himself as a military expert. From the real expert, Gen. Tommy Franks: (Emphasis by LC)

President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we “outsourced” the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator’s understanding of events doesn’t square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry’s contention that we “had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden” and that “we had him surrounded.” We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Second, we did not “outsource” military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Third, the Afghans weren’t left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help – as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never “took his eye off the ball” when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.

As we planned for potential military action in Iraq and conducted counterterrorist operations in several other countries in the region, Afghanistan remained a center of focus. Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

We are committed to winning this war on all fronts, and we are making impressive gains. Afghanistan has held the first free elections in its history. Iraq is led by a free government made up of its own citizens. By the end of this year, NATO and American forces will have trained 125,000 Iraqis to enforce the law, fight insurgents and secure the borders. This is in addition to the great humanitarian progress already achieved in Iraq.

Many hurdles remain, of course. But the gravest danger would result from the withdrawal of American troops before we finish our work. Today we are asking our servicemen and women to do more, in more places, than we have in decades. They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices. The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not.

John Kerry and Barack Hussein Obama should go back and read the op-ed by Gen. Franks and stop their lies about George W. Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan.

John Kerry has been dishonest his whole life and hasn’t stopped yet. John Kerry, liar, treasonous, Moonbat. Indeed!

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

Martha Stewart

Home “How To” Diva

Ms. Stewart should stick to her magazine, TV show(s) and business endeavors while staying out of public discourse on such things as Sarah Palin, former GOP VP candidate and Alaska governor. If Ms. Stewart would like us to discuss her conviction for lying to federal agents and time in jail we’d be glad to accommodate her.

In fact, this author defended Stewart during her tenure before and after prison, defended her capitalist and free market entreprenurial success. However, we can’t defend her when she opens her big mouth and attacks another public figure when she has no facts to base her horrible comments only misguided opinion.

Like Hollywood “celebrities” who don’t mind cashing in on capitalism, free speech through the arts and free markets Ms. Stewart should stop practicing her Socialist/Marxist side, especially when many who support the “Martha Stewart” brand don’t support her comments about politics and Ms. Palin specifically.

Stewart made it clear to CNN HLN’s Showbiz Tonight producer Jenny D’Attoma that she’s not a big fan:

“She’s very boring to me, very boring. And a very, to me, kind of a dangerous person. I mean, she’s dangerous. She speaks, she’s, she’s so confused. And anyone like that in government is a real problem.”

Watch D’Attoma’s interview with Stewart here.

We wish Ms. Stewart would explain her comments in detail about Ms. Palin without the celebrity sound bites. Provide real examples why you don’t like her and find it necessary to publicly attack her Ms. Stewart.

Martha Stewart, home “how-to” diva, celebrity Socialist, hypocrite and Moonbat. Indeed!

P.S. This household will be canceling the Martha Stewart subscription. We’re sure she’ll survive.

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

Barack Hussein Obama

Former Community Organizer (IL)

From The Heritage Foundation: Obama in Japan: Not a Bow but a Kowtow

***************

On President Obama’s trip across Asia, the major news has not been America’s policy posture, but rather our president’s personal posture. On Saturday, photo and video emerged of President Obama bowing at a 45 degree angle, head down, hand outstretched to Japan’s Emperor Akihito. Even within Japanese culture, this bow was certainly excessive. And the flood of pictures now surfacing of other world leaders greeting the Emperor without so much as a head nod prove that this bow was more than a simple diplomatic gesture.

The bow certainly plays into the image that President Obama is overly obsequious during his overseas trips, such as repeatedly making apologies for past US actions and policies. But more importantly, it reflects the Obama strategy of distinguishing his administration from President Bush’s by making improving the US image the major policy objective rather than as a means to an ends. In fact, he is at such pains to demonstrate respect in relationships where respect and engagement were already abundant, that he can only demonstrate the difference with Bush by going over the top.

Several other questions come to mind after seeing the bow several times.

Does the president understand the difference between a bow and a kowtow? The Japanese media certainly do. They did not distribute the embarrassing photo of the president and the emperor to the Japanese people. Instead they chose to distribute the more conservative greeting shared between the President and the Emperor’s wife. The Japanese know the bow would demonstrate weakness on behalf of President Obama, and neither Japan nor the United States would benefit from this impression.

Who coached the president on the proper way to greet the emperor—a State Department employee, a National Security Council aide, his social secretary? Whoever it was, they were not serving the interests of the President or the nation. Proper, social and diplomatic etiquette is demanded upon any U.S. president, but gestures such as this greeting should not tell more about a meeting rather than the policy that leaves it. Or did the President take it entirely upon himself to discern the complexities of Japanese social custom and the impact on international public perceptions?

Why does the president seem to apologize for America to every foreign leader he meets? President Obama’s reverential bow to Emperor Akihito raises yet again questions as to whether the president understands that he swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not the UN Charter, and to preserve and protect U.S. interests, not the self-interests of other nations.

At first the idea of an Obama ‘apology tour’ seemed far fetched. But when Air Force One touches down anywhere overseas, President Obama seems determined to demonstrate he is not President Bush or any other president and that America is humbled by other nation’s leadership.

Asian leaders pay careful attention to the conduct of a visiting dignitary. President Obama’s obsequious act was that of a third world official – if that – not the chief of state of the most important nation in the world. While President Obama’s diplomatic inexperience can excuse some behavior, ten months into his presidency, he and his staff should know better.

President Obama’s bow, almost a kowtow, to Japan’s emperor is more than embarrassing. But most importantly it detracts from the more important aspects of the president’s trip to Asia. The President has rightly affirmed a strong stance towards North Korea and made strides in a couple other critical ongoing policy matters, many left over from President Bush’s near decade of engagement. On the negative side of the ledger, Obama has demonstrated a total lack of U.S. trade policy, ignoring pleas for progress on trade issues and drawing criticism from both sides of the Pacific.

But those issues will be put aside while America and the rest of the world guess what President Obama meant by his extreme bow. Presidents from Nixon to Clinton to Bush were able to greet Japanese leaders with the proper mix of respect and decorum. Those photos of past presidents are available to review but often forgotten. The image of Obama bowing is a picture worth a thousand words, and will be an image embedded in the minds of historians when they reflect on his administration.

***************

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

Newt Gingrich (R-GA, Former House Speaker) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) endorsed Republican candidate in New Yorks 23rd Congressional district Dede Scozzafava. The press is writing that Scozzafava is a centrist or moderate but this is the furthest thing from the truth.

In fact, after ditching her bid for election, Scozzafava dropped out of the race a few days before the election, and endorsed her Democrat opponent Bill Owens.

Doug Hoffman, the local Conservative Party’s candidate, received no money and no backing from the GOP nationally or locally.

“The special election for the 23rd Congressional District is an important test leading up to the mid-term 2010 elections,” Gingrich said of Scozzafava’s candidacy in a statement to supporters, as reported by the The Post-Standard. “Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”

The Club for Growth, Concerned Women of America, evangelical leader Gary Bauer, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) and a host of other GOP supporters and lawmakers endorsed Hoffman.

Gingrich championed Scozzafava’s candidacy before the election as the future of the party — not necessarily the harbinger for a lingering party divide.

“The Republican Revolution in 1994 started very much like what we see today,” the former speaker said.  “Like then, our country is reeling from misguided liberal policies, high taxes and out-of-control spending. This special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District could be the first election of the new Republican Revolution, but we need the momentum to get it started.”

As NY State Assemblywoman Scozzafava had been re-elected several times on the ballot line of the Empire State’s far-left Working Families Party, one of whose co-founders is ACORN. (ACORN head Bertha Lewis, who was much in the news for corruption, doubles as vice chairman of the Working Families Party).

Founded in 1998, Working Families Party has focused on Democrats and this “enabled it to accumulate surprising influence over Democratic officials, yanking them left on economic issues like the minimum wage, which the party was instrumental in helping to raise in New York State, in exchange for its support.”  (American Prospect Magazine, May 2006).

Last November, while Dede Scozzafava carried the endorsement of the ultra-liberal Working Families Party she shared their ticket with Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Four years earlier she was on the ticket with John Kerry and John Edwards.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was simultaneously raising support for Scozzafava and trying to defund ACORN. OOPS!

“I think this [cutting off ACORN] will have a chilling effect on their election activities and anyone that has a relationship with them [ACORN],” Boehner told his colleagues following the House vote by 347-to-75 to deny federal funds to ACORN.  

When John Gizzi of Human Events mentioned Scozzafava’s ties to the ACORN-run WFP, Boehner political operative Don Seymour insisted this did not change his boss’s support for her or his desire to have a Republican succeed Rep. (and incoming Secretary of the Army) John McHugh in the special election likely to be held November 3rd.

“. . .Mr. Boehner takes very seriously his job of making sure we have Republican candidates who fit their districts, and can compete and win all across the country,” Seymour told me, “We think Dede Scozzafava will be a strong voice for our men and women in uniform, and for curbing spending and getting control of the debt in Washington.”

Every year the NY Conservative Party publishes a “Legislative Scorecard” which focuses on a broad spectrum of legislation (social, economic, criminal justice, etc) that state senators and Assembly members vote on in Albany. Last year Ms. Scozzafava scored a 15 percent out of 100 percent, only 5 points higher than Assembly Majority Leader Sheldon Silver, an individual, who the majority of New Yorkers would agree is a liberal.

The more shocking fact found in the scorecard is this: 46 Democratic members of the New York state Legislature had a more conservative voting record than Dede Scozzafava!

Scozzafava consistently votes for gay marriage, abortion, tax increases and unchecked spending.

NARAL Pro-Choice New York launched a campaign on Scozzafava’s behalf that included mail to more than 10,000 households and volunteer phone banking “highlighting Scozzafava’s many pro-choice, pro-active votes in the State Assembly and her distinction as the only 100% pro-choice candidate in the race,” according to a news release from the group.

After suspending her campaign Scozzafava actually recorded a “robocall” for Democrat candidate Bill Owens (audio available here, transcript below, h/t Tweeter EndTheRoboCalls):

Hi, this is Dede Scozzafava calling on behalf of Bill Owens.  And I wanted to let you know that I am supporting Bill for Congress.

Since beginning my campaign I have said that this election is not about me, it’s about the people of this district.  It’s not in the cards for me to be your representative but I strongly believe Bill Owens is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh’s lasting legacy in Congress.

In Bill Owens I see a sense of duty and integrity.  He will be an independent voice, devoted to doing what is right for New York.  To address the tough challenges ahead we must rise above partisanship and politics, and work together.

Please join me in voting for Bill Owens on Tuesday.

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, the ultra left-wing nut house endorsed Scozzafava in the beginning of October.

Club for Growth darling Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party line, and has even garnered the endorsement of Fred Thompson. The guy has legitimate traction, fueled by the fact that Dede Scozzafava, the Republican, is actually the most liberal candidate in the race.

Sure, she is a Republican, and opposes the public option. But she’s been willing to raise taxes when budgets require it, and is to the left of most Democrats on social issues (including supporting gay marriage). That’s why conservatives are panicked about her — for a party that is becoming more regional, more conservative, more ideologically rigid, Scozzafava’s brand of moderate conservatism is grating. Hence, Hoffman has a real shot at not just playing spoiler and undermining the GOP candidate’s chances, but also of potentially winning.

As a congresswoman, she could either move even more to the left to properly represent her progressive-trending district and be a pain in the side of the GOP caucus (they have nothing like our Blue Dogs), or Democrats can field a real Democrat to challenge her in 2010.

With all of this information available on Scozzafava we find it extremely irresponsible for Newt Gingrich and John Boehner to have publicly endorsed Scozzafava. If Gingrich and Boehner wish to call themselves Conservatives then they might start acting like it, endorse real Conservatives or get out of the way.

Until actions speak louder then words Gingrich and Boehner are Moonbats, Indeed!

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

Everyone Who Is For Obamacare and Obama Healthcare Clones

Sorry….the US can’t afford your ailments anymore….so your
“End of Life Guidance Counselor”has selected you to participate
in an all-expense paid cruise! “Hope” you enjoy your cruise.

Don’t let your future be decided by a Leftist/Marxist/Fascist and a pain pill. Indeed!

Hat Tip: Betty Albright

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

 The Norwegian Nobel Committee

Unbelievable, not surprising, Barack Hussein Obama receives a Nobel Peace Prize. James Taranto at OpinionJournal writes and explains it best:

**************

Yasser Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize, too. In a way, though, this comparison is unfair to Arafat, who, by signing the Oslo Accords, had at least accomplished something on paper. What has Barack Obama, in office less than nine months, actually done to promote peace?

Besides the beer summit, we mean.

You see the problem here. The jokes write themselves. Six days ago, “Saturday Night Live” was mocking Obama for having accomplished nothing, and the president’s media protectors were crying foul. After all, can’t expect a guy to accomplish very much in a few short months. But the incongruity of this staggeringly premature honor–the equivalent of a lifetime-achievement Oscar for a child star–makes yesterday’s satire into today’s news. Thus Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press:

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Price to President Barack Obama landed with a shock on darkened, still-asleep Washington. He won! For what? . . .

The prize seems to be more for Obama’s promise than for his performance. Work on the president’s ambitious agenda, both at home and abroad, is barely underway, much less finished. He has no standout moment of victory that would seem to warrant a verdict as sweeping as that issued by the Nobel committee.

And what about peace? Obama is running two wars in the Muslim world–in Iraq and Afghanistan–and can’t get a climate change bill through his own Congress.

His scorecard for the year is largely an “incomplete,” if he’s being graded.

Loven goes on to list the promises yet unkept: closing Guantanamo, bringing the troops home from Iraq, making peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, etc. The only thing missing is “Live, from New York . . .!”

Oh, and actually, we’re not sure the beer summit even counts. CNN noted earlier (in a passage that has been cut from this story):

Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1–only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September–two months before Obama was elected president.

So Obama was already a nominee by the time he had completed 0.82% of his presidential term. “There is one lovely, delicious, delectable thing about it: it will drive the American right wing up the wall,” writes Michael Tomasky, Washington correspondent for London’s left-wing Guardian. And indeed, it has prompted such up-the-wall right-wing commentary as this:

This is so out of nowhere that it could be almost embarrassing for the White House. If Obama and his people try to act like this was really deserved, he could actually damage himself politically.

If I were in the boiler room over there, I would begin by suggesting to the president that he demur altogether. That he tell the committee that while he’s deeply touched, he does not in fact feel that he has yet done the work to earn this award

Oh, sorry! That wasn’t a right-winger, it was Michael Tomasky. The truth be told, the American right is the least likely group to be driven “up the wall” by this. They have already discounted the Nobel Peace Prize for parochial partisanship. Obama’s is the third of the past eight Nobel Peace Prizes to go to a member of the U.S. Democratic Party (after Jimmy Carter and Al Gore), and the fourth of the eight that seems a direct rebuke to now-former president George W. Bush (Mohammed ElBaradei being the non-American among this category).

Thus a conservative can argue that Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize because it is already so devalued. Commentary’s John Podhoretz:

The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization’s highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than “the indispensable nation,” as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

But if you think the prize is still a source of prestige, you have to be mystified or embarrassed. “Obama Peace Prize Win Has Americans Asking Why?” reads a Reuters headline, and the dispatch, datelined New York, quotes many people from liberal precincts:

“It would be wonderful if I could think why he won,” said Claire Sprague, 82, a retired English professor as she walked her dog in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village. “They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can’t think what for.”

Itya Silverio, 33, of Brooklyn, was also surprised. “My first opinion is that he got it because he’s black,” she said. “What did he do that was so great? He hasn’t even finished office yet.” . . .

Some said the choice could damage the Nobel committee’s credibility and that of the award.

“It looks less like an objective award than it does a political endorsement,” said William Jelani Cobb, a history professor at Spelman College in Atlanta and author of a forthcoming book on Obama.

“Guantanamo is not closed yet and it makes it difficult for him to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan,” he said. . . .

Many seemed happy even if they weren’t sure why Obama won.

“How wonderful, I think that’s fantastic,” said David Spierer, 48, from New York who works in medical sales. “I know what he’s doing but what has he done? Change is coming but you don’t win a Nobel Peace Prize for the future.”

“Obama won? Really? Wow,” said David Hassan, 43, of Pine Brook, New Jersey. “He deserves it I guess, he’s the president. He’s a smart guy and I guess he’s into peace.”

Perhaps the strongest evidence that the prize is embarrassing to the president is that it has prompted a display of vicious partisanship–from the Democrats. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, issued a statement quoted by the Baltimore Sun:

“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights,” Steele said.

“One thing is certain–President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action,” added the former Maryland lieutenant governor.

If Obama had really won something worth winning, his supporters would have replied to Steele with a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger disparagement of partisan sour grapes. Instead, as Politico’s Ben Smith reports, the Democratic National Committee went into an insane rage:

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists–the Taliban and Hamas this morning–in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told Politico. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize–an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride–unless of course you are the Republican Party.

“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore–it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.

So within hours of the president’s being honored for his commitment to “multilateral diplomacy . . . dialogue and negotiations,” his surrogates were attacking his domestic opponents in the most crudely jingoistic terms. The question is not whether Obama can live up to the Nobel Peace Prize, but whether he will be able to live it down.

**************

I can think of a better “award” for Obama but the Secret Service or FBI might come knocking if I write. Wait, no I’m not advocating any harm. Are there any Italian lamp posts for sale on Ebay?

From community organizer, to the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, Marxist/Fascist hybrid and yes, Moonbat with his friends in Norway. Indeed!

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL)

Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson, summed up the GOP health care plan last Tuesday from the US House floor:

“If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly! That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick. Remember the Republican plan: Don’t get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.”

After saying he was inspired to read the Republican health care plan by the paper-waving GOP lawmakers at Obama’s recent address, Grayson summed up his findings with a few simple pieces of posterboard. (Video)

“The Republican health care plan: don’t get sick,” he said. But, he added,”The Republicans have a back up plan in case you do get sick … This is what the Republicans want you to do. If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly!”

Republicans had demanded an apology for the “Die quickly” remark on House floor. Grayson refused, saying the next day:

“I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”

The Florida congressman, who is Jewish, confirms today that he has written an apology to the Anti-Defamation League, saying, “In no way did I mean to minimize the Holocaust… I regret the choice of words, and I will not repeat it.”

That’s likely to be as repentant as Grayson gets. He’s certainly not letting up on Republicans — “knuckle-dragging Neanderthals” as he called them Thursday. (Video)

Washington Wire knows quite enough has been posted on this brouhaha. But indulge them for just a bit as they culled Grayson’s greatest hits at House Financial Services Committee hearings where it seems at times he’s trying hard to best Chairman Barney Frank at pugnacity.

Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn tells Grayson that the Fed has promised not to publish the names of its borrowers. Grayson, who has been a congressman for a week at that point, snaps: “What gave you the authority to say that? Isn’t that something that we should be deciding, not you?” Click here.

Grayson to Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit: “You tell me, Mr. Pandit, where I can get a deal like this… You get 100% of the upside and the government gets 90% of the downside, correct? Have you heard the phrase, Mr. Pandit, ‘Heads you win, tails I lose’?” Click here.

Grayson to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner: At what point is enough enough? Why didn’t anybody stop AIG from accumulating that kind of risk and then turning it over to the taxpayers? Click here.

Grayson to the Fed’s inspector general on its off-balance sheet transactions: “I’d like to know, if you’re not responsible for investigating that, who is?” Click here.

Grayson to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: “Is it safe to say nobody in 1913 contemplated that your small little group of people would decide to hand out half a trillion dollars to foreigners?” Click here.

Rep. Grayson, no class, no facts, a thug, soon to be voted from office and Moonbat. Indeed!

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.

 Zbigniew Brzezinski

When the Israeli army’s then-Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Halutz was asked in 2004 how far Israel would go to stop Iran’s nuclear program, he replied: “2,000 kilometers,” roughly the distance been the two countries.

Israel’s political and military leaders have long made it clear that they are considering taking decisive military action if Iran continues to develop its nuclear program. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned at the United Nations this week that “the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Barack Obama, has called on the president to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran.

“They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.

Brzezinski, who served in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1981, is currently a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Maryland.

From the Daily Beast interview:

DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

DB: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

We certainly don’t want further complications in the Middle East, however, the US, France and the UK on Friday accused Tehran of building a covert uranium enrichment facility, a development they said directly challenges the world’s non-proliferation rules.

Later in the day, Iran publicly confirmed and strongly defended the nuclear fuel facility.

Speaking at an overflowing news conference in New York Friday afternoon, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country has complied with rules of the UN nuclear agency that requires Tehran inform it of any new enrichment facility six months before any such facility becomes operational, the Associated Press reported.

He told the news conference that the new facility won’t be operational for 18 months so Iran has not violated any requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, AP said.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev acknowledged Friday that Iran’s nuclear development program had violated U.N. Security Council resolutions and called upon the country to comply with international inspections.

“Iran’s construction of a uranium enrichment plant violates decisions of the United Nations Security Council,” Mr. Medvedev said in a statement.

“The International Atomic Energy Agency must investigate this site immediately, and Iran must cooperate with this investigation.”

Allow Iran more facilities to build a nuclear weapon, sanctions, talks, dialogue, no pre-conditions and Israel should sit back and watch this happen from a country whose president said he would wipe Israel off the face of the earth. What has waiting down except buy time for Iran to continue on its mission to build nuclear weapons?

Mr. Brzezinski would have American pilots engage and shoot down Israeli pilots unless of course the Israeli pilots got the upper hand and shot our pilots down first. US pilots would be defending Iran against Israel.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Moonbat, indeed!

Moonbat is a special feature of Liberally Conservative and posted each Saturday. For previous awards visit Moonbat Awards.