Peppermint Patty

Someone else asked this question and it was deleted, but I think it deserves an answer.

5,000 people died on September 11th, 2001 alone due to jihadi terror. Jihad as it is defined by the Salafist school of Islam not only condones violent acts against non-Salafists, it declares that they are a religious duty - a belief that causes violence directed at non-Salafists in general and against American citizens specifically (by means of several fatwas which have not been effectively repudiated by Salafist clerics).

By way of contradiction, there is considerable controversy that "global warming" exists, or that if it does, that it will have the dire effects on the global environment claimed for it. The case for "global warming" strongly resembles several examples of "pathological science" outlined by Dr. Irving Langmuir, in that the effects claimed for the theory are either not in evidence or readily explainable by more likely means.

And yet, the Obama administration has banned reference to the real and continuing threat posed by jihadi terrorists (as demonstrated most recently at the Fort Hood massacre and the near-miss caused by the Christmas Bomber last year) to our national security while promoting a phenomenon called "global warming" to the top of our national security issues when there isn't even unanimous opinion among climatologists that it deserves such attention.

Why is that?

According to the Huffington Post, ("Jimmy Carter Objects To Article Comparing His Foreign Policy To Obama's," as posted in Yahoo News, http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100222/cm_huffp... James Earl Carter, former President who was hoisted by his own Misery Index - under which Obama also fares badly - objected to foreign policy analyst Russell Mead's comparing his foreign policy to Barack Hussein Obama's.

Now, cutting past all the apologies for both Obama's and Carter's foreign policy records in the HuffPo article, aren't there some similarities at work? The alternating grovelling and lickspittle admiration for foreign despots? The utter helplessness before Iran, and the possession of American hostages by Iran under both administrations? The de-emphasis of strategic defense and dithering on how to manage military threats? The failure to effectively deal with Russia? And the credulous pouring of cash into Pakistan in exchange for some token handovers of the very same terrorists which Pakistan has provided safe haven to for decades, accompanied by the same impotent threats to Pakistan over their sponsorship of regional terror and aggression against India, and the same blind eye turned to their nuclear programs?

Why IS Jimmy Carter resisting a comparison of his foreign policy with Barack Obama's? I thought they were buddies? Isn't - according to Jimmy Carter - any criticism of Obama racist? (Of course, we're supposed to forget that Lester Maddox campaigned for Carter's gubernatorial campaign in Georgia, in which Carter campaigned as a "redneck Democrat," which I believe is code for "Dixiecrat.")

I saw an ad on a YA page asking for people to organize for Barack Obama. It linked to the following page:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/joinofaflag...

First, why is the President of the United States, a year after his election, still lending his name to partisan political projects, with his name on a .com Web site? Could there be a clearer indication that when he told the Congressional minority leadership last year "Elections have consequences," that this meant half the country would be disenfranchised as far as Barack Obama (.com) was concerned?

since he predicted that the Indianapolis Colts will win the Super Bowl during his interview in the pre-game show... Obama apparently figures he has Louisiana in hip pocket. As a native Louisianian with plenty of relatives back home, I can say that this is not the case. Obama has disappointed and alienated a state full of formerly die-hard Democrats - perhaps the last state in the Solid South to have a significantly bi-racial Democratic Party.

Having hijacked the Super Bowl pre-game show to whine about why nobody likes him any more, does Obama really think that Louisianians are going to thank him for dissing THEIR TEAM?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvG3l...

is about as sick as a rant can get. It's still up on Yahoo Answers. When I dared to ask about WHY it's still up, MY question was removed. Why?

http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=AiC3dWPda... has been allowed to post and to use a very frankly offensive avatar and nickname despite being reported. When I asked about this, I was reported and my question removed immediately. Why?

Let's take "David" and his recent "Questions," as an example:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;%E2%80%A6

If "David" had made this statement in a court of law, he would be paying libel judgments for the rest of his life. But Yahoo Customer Care left it up despite complaints. What sort of moral authority does that give them? What does it say for their objectivity?

On tonight's O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly featured Pat Robertson's idiotic remarks on Haiti, with pithy criticism. O'Reilly agrees with every conservative friend of mine that Robertson is several holy cards short of a deck. (O'Reilly also called the Hearst papers' Helen Thomas - another case of advanced senility failing to push someone out of the limelight - out for saying that she disbelieves that terrorism exists, which was immensely satisfying.)

Do we need to gut Pat Robertson on a stone altar, or just ignore the old fart and carry on with serious political discussions?

Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" only has a million people watching his show. Stephen Colbert gets less. Those are puny figures for news, or even niche programs like Comedy Central's standard bill of fare.

How long can they carry an operating loss like that? And who's picking up the bills? At a million pairs of eyes, who's paying to advertise there besides "Drunk Minor College Girls Gone Wild"?

I've always suspected that there was a lot of money coming in from left-wing political organizations, given Jon's political biases.