Google displays secret British SAS base on Google Street View.

How perfect for terrorists looking for a target! If anything untoward happens, I hope the British sue the bejezus out of Google.

Google: bowing and scraping to the Communist Chinese while dumping on the UK.

Google once more shows that its corporate policy which states “Do no evil” is nothing but empty words.

Given the choice between showing an SAS secret base on Google Street View (an obvious terrorist target) and perhaps giving up a few pence, Google shouts “Show me the Money!”

It’s one reason that as soon as someone makes a viable alternative to a Google product, people flock to it. Google Chrome will languish because, a large number of surfers don’t want to be tied to a company that obviously puts any chance to make a buck ahead of national security.

Do No Evil, my ass.

[ABOVE: RomneyCare? Never heard of it!]

BEFORE THE ABOMINATION OF OBAMACARE,
THERE WAS THE BEAST OF ROMNEYCARE

Mitt Romney may have minions stashed at various squishy so-called conservative sites around the blogosphere singing the ex-Massachusetts governor’s praises, but they swallow hard and start sweating whenever Mitt’s legacy program is discussed.

Individual mandates, employer fines, compulsive insurance, costs exploding, state on the verge of bankruptcy: what’s not to like about RomneyCare–if you’re a flaming progressive.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal compared RomneyCare with ObamaCare and found almost no differences. From
The Failure of RomneyCare:

Both have an individual mandate requiring most residents to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Most businesses are required to participate or pay a fine. Both rely on government-designed purchasing exchanges that also provide a platform to control private health insurance. Many of the uninsured are covered through Medicaid expansion and others receive subsidies for highly-prescriptive policies. And the apparatus requires a plethora of new government boards and agencies.

While it’s true that the liberal Massachusetts legislature did turn Mr. Romney’s plan to the left, his claims that his plan is “entirely different” will not stand up to the intense scrutiny of a presidential campaign, especially a primary challenge. Mr. Romney needs to be more honest about his Massachusetts experiment and its failings.

Good luck getting Romney or his supporters to own up to much in the Senator’s shaky resume: a paper trail that makes a RINO break out in applause is one that makes conservatives break out the pitchforks.

Whenever the subject of Romney white Massachusetts elephant comes up, he and his supporter attempt to change history. Failing that, they change the subject.

Of course, that could change: as Romney’s position on abortion–a deeply personal subject–changed whenever he had to appeal to a larger group than merely the voters of Massachusetts. As Romney prepares his 2012 presidential campaign, one suspects that other issues will be “redefined” as well.

Before the first primary battle in 2012, expect Mitt Romney to deny his creation more times than Peter did Christ.

Mitt Romney’s big advantage over Barack Obama at this point?

Certainly not his choice of forcing an expensive, bloated health care bureaucracy on unwilling voters. That’s a wash.

However, Romney’s supporters are on solid ground to point out that Mitt had more success with the Olympics than Obama had.

UPDATE:
You knew it was coming. Politico’s Tim Murphy is out and about making the case that RomneyCare sucks less than advertised. Expect to see this defense by Romney himself in the future: Hey, RomneyCare’s thirty-six varieties of awesome, it’s just the victim of politics, doncha know?
The truth about Massachusetts health care reform

UPDATE #2: Jennifer Rubin at Commentary has the right prescription for ObamaCare–and by extension, RomneyCare: Don’t Be Morose! Get Even!.

Should this pass, I have infinite faith that the American people will deliver a mortal electoral blow to those politicians who thought they could shred anything to get their way. And then bit by bit — or in one fell swoop — the elected replacements for the shredders will rip out ObamaCare. So there’s no reason to be morose. Elections are great corrective exercises, and one is just around the corner.

And if Massachusetts has to pay their own bills for the health care fantasies contained in RomneyCare, they might start doing some ripping out of their own.

Obama fooled 52.7% of the American people; Romney shouldn’t be able to fool that many Republicans.

Regardless of how many faux-conservative sites dance to his tune.

UPDATE #3: I saw this yesterday and forgot to add it to the original post: The Masscare Massacre.

Actually, says Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill, the two health care bills are very much alike — and that’s exactly the problem.

Both health care plans rely on the individual mandate, subsidies, and exchanges intended to match buyers with health insurance plans. “If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform adopted here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said, launching an all-out offensive against Romneycare in Massachusetts and its cousin Obamacare nationwide.

RomneyCare and ObamaCare: two peas in the same pod. Two different politicians talking out both sides of their mouth in an attempt to explain it why it will be good medicine for those forced to take it.

Eric Massa, the Dem congressperson that went off on a satisfying–if you’re opposed to ObamaCare–rant yesterday: is he a victim of Dem duplicity, a PR genius or a lying weasel?

Bob Lonsberry asks if he can vote more than once.

From ERIC MASSA DUPES THE CONSERVATIVES:

But for the record, a few facts.

The first is that over the space of five days Eric Massa gave three completely different explanations for why he was leaving the House of Representatives. Each was passionately delivered, each was earnestly intoned, and each was mutually exclusive.

That means they can’t all be true.

For example, on Wednesday, he announced that he would not seek re-election. He said it was because his cancer was back. He implied that he was dying and that his doctor had told him that his workload was killing him.

By Friday, however, it wasn’t cancer anymore, and it wasn’t just no re-election. It was resignation. He said he had to “own this reality,” acknowledged that he had done something that made him unworthy of office, and that his background contained events that congressional investigators would uncover if they looked into him.

Let’s review. Wednesday it was cancer, Friday it was personal failing.

And Sunday it was a conspiracy.

Lonsberry thinks that Massa is “duping” conservatives. Since Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, Glenn Beck and Fox News publicized Massa’s story and by doing so, they’ve been hoodwinked by the guy.

Massa appears to be a dirtbag–but does that invalidate some of what he’s saying? By that logic, police would never believe the informant and the FBI and CIA would never get good intelligence unless the person from whom they got information was squeaky clean.

The USA tried that once–during the Clinton years, intelligence agencies couldn’t deal with info sources that were unsavory–and we know how that turned out.

It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that Massa has his own agenda, the Democrats and Obama have their own and conservatives have still another.

Massa’s resigned, so he’s no longer trying to save his electoral skin, though he is trying to save his personal reputation, such as it is.

Massa has motivation to spin unpleasant news his way: he’s a politician. Just like the CIA informants, his unsavory actions don’t invalidate using him as an intelligence source.

Limbaugh, Beck, Drudge and others are right to repeat his charges–and his troubles. Not reporting on Massa makes New Media no better than Old Media: just another bunch of hacks trying to control the flow of information because we think we know what’s best.

Listening to Eric Massa’s spin doesn’t mean buying his whole story. Old Media doesn’t think readers/viewers can handle unpleasant truths–especially truths that are unpleasant to Progressives–so they spike stories and don’t report them.

Listening to a Democrat spill on the corrupt, rotten process that has become ObamaCare does not make one a “dupe.” A better word would be “informed.”

ALSO: Video: Beck, Michelle Malkin go toe to toe over Massa interview

image: Politico

NEWSWEEK’S DARMAN MAKING A PITCH?
RIELLE HUNTER: ONE DIGNIFIED HOME-WRECKER

Is Jonathan Darman auditioning for the job of ghost-writer of a future Rielle Hunter tell-all book?

Newsweek’s Darman presents a treads a delicate line between leering fascination and mistress empathy. A sample from The Quiet Dignity of Rielle Hunter:

And yet, for two years, she has behaved with more public dignity than any other figure in the Edwards scandal. In fact, she acted with more discipline and discretion than any mistress in the recent history of sex scandals.

Leave aside the many self-interested motivations that Rielle Hunter has to exercise discretion at this point and consider what Darman is saying.

Hunter is not only a homewrecker, she’s–historic!

Rielle is no model of discretion when compared to those women, nor to the untold thousands of women (and men) who shared the beds of powerful men and kept the secret so well that history will never know their names.

But in her own time, Rielle stands out. It has been more than two years since she earned national notoriety when the National Enquirer first alleged that she was Edwards’s secret mistress.

The thing about the Edwards Scandal that readers may want to keep in mind, Jonathan Darman’s cheerleading aside: the more information that emerges from this sordid affair, the less chance that anyone involved has of looking good.

In the not-so-long-ago past it was speculated that Andrew Young would come off as perhaps the most honorable person in the whole affair.

That was before Young’s recent book, The Politician, became available–and dashed all speculation in that regard.

Prediction: it will be no different with Rielle Hunter. The more information that is revealed, the less “dignified” she will look to all.

Except the odd writer competing, for whatever reason, for her attentions.

UPDATE: In related news, ABC cuts 300 news jobs. When an organization doesn’t cover inconvenient news–as ABC didn’t do during the months of the Edwards Scandal–why not cut 600?

Seems that if ABC only covers news from the Left side, they might be able to get along with only a couple hundred in the “News” department. Actually, MSNBC’s got the franchise on Lefty news coverage, so why cover the news at all if you’re ABC?

Just a thought for when the next cuts begin to be contemplated.

TEXAS TEA PARTY ANSWERS KEITH OLBERMANN’s
NOT-SO-SUBTLE RACISM CHARGES WITH VIDEO!

Found the video below at Atlas,Olbermann Busted by Texas Tea .

It was so enjoyable, it was thought that readers who might not be aware of it would find it enlightening.

Olbermann, like most of the Left, can’t just disagree with someone. They have to smear the motives of those who don’t agree with their viewpoint. In doing so, they’ve taken most of the sting out of word that should have some: racism.

It’s not even vile anymore. It’s somewhere between slightly amusing and self-mockery.

Keith Obergruppenfuhrer, two things to keep in mind:
1- Don’t mess with Texas;
2-Don’t Tread on Me!

Class dismissed.

ALL’S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR?!?

Rick at Brutally Honest, wonders if Allied targeters might not be getting duped by the Taliban?

Nato strike kills 27 Afghanistan civilians via Are our targeters on the ground being willfully duped?:

At least 33 civilians were killed in a Nato air strike in southern Afghanistan on Sunday, the Afghan government says.

Nato said it hit a suspected insurgent convoy, but ground forces later found “a number of individuals killed and wounded”, including women and children.

The attack, in Uruzgan province, was not part of a major Nato-led offensive in neighbouring Helmand province.
[...]
A Nato statement said it was thought the convoy contained Taliban insurgents on their way to attack Afghan and foreign military forces.

But Sultan Ali, the governor of Uruzgan province, told the BBC all of the dead were civilians.

Rick has contacted some milbloggers and promises to update the post when any feedback comes his way.

War is a necessary but messy business in spite of media and military efforts to make it appear otherwise.

“Surgical strike” sounds very much like something done with incredible precision. Compared to the past, when a large amount of explosives were thrown or dropped through the air–along with a large amount of hope–targeting today is more reliable.

Still, the results on the ground are, at times, anything but “surgical.”

Is this just another excuse for lousy work? Or, are our targeters being duped by the Taliban for P.R. purposes?

Stay tuned.

image: du.edu

[ABOVE: When it comes to Porkulus II, McConnell's ready to declare peace with big-spending Democrats]

Mitch McConnell says Republicans may very well go along with Porkulus II. And why not? It’s not more taxpayer money–it’s the taxpayers’ kids’ money.

MITCH McCONNELL IS THROWING AWAY ANY MORAL HIGH GROUND ON SPENDING

Is Mitch McConnell (D-KY) a DNC plant?

Don Surber sounds the warning that the Republicans may cave on jobs bill.

This is depressing news. The Associated Press reported that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell may join the White House in borrowing even more money we don’t have to throw at another stimulus we don’t need.

It failed to work in 2008 under the $150 billion Bush stimulus.

It failed to work in 2009 under the $787 billion “I Won” stimulus.

Why in heavens name does McConnell think $13 billion more will do the trick?

Surber quotes the following AP story:

The top Republican in the Senate said Sunday that GOP lawmakers “may well” vote for a jobs bill this week.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., prefers a costlier version drafted with GOP input and he didn’t commit his support to advance the legislation on Monday to a final vote this coming week.

The pending measure would provide businesses that hire the unemployed a one-year break from payroll taxes and a $1,000 tax credit if those workers stay on the job for a full year. The cost is estimated at $13 billion.

Here’s a reminder for Mitch McConnell and other Republicans, notably newly-elected Scott Brown: the Tea Party protests weren’t about a lack of bipartisanship. They were about fiscal responsibility.

Or rather, a lack of fiscal responsibility by the United States Congress. It only takes a reacharound across the aisle to remind voters why they booted earmarking, pork-addicted Republicans just a few years ago.

The GOP’s remarkable comeback wasn’t fueled by McConnell’s go-along-to-get-along attitude on spending and ObamaCare.

Scott Brown was elected by the voters of Massachusetts specifically because he declared he was fiscally responsible. It hasn’t taken long for reports to surface in the last week that Mr. 41 might become Mr. Whatever.

Voters will soon enough get a chance to remind Mr. McConnell that they’ve had it up to here with borrowing money we don’t have to bail Democrat special interests out.

It doesn’t matter if the Republicans find their own special interests to bail out–voters will remember and count down the days to make their displeasure known.

This was exactly what Glenn Beck was talking about in his speech to CPAC Saturday about their being little difference between the party elites. Bill Bennett took umbrage at that notion. Bennett should have consulted McConnell before he wrote his piece.

McConnell has made Bennett look like a fool.

Why cede the moral high ground on spending now, Mr. McConnell?

He’s either ignorant of voter concerns or he’s a DNC plant.

image: http://www.egmcartech.com
Go To DBKP Front Page.

SPEAKING OF HACKS…

You can say one thing for David Brooks, the New York Times’ domesticated “conservative”: it’s hard to beat his unintentionally-hilarious quotes.

His latest cluelessness?

“Government used to be staffed by party hacks. Today, it is staffed by people from public policy schools. But does government work better than it did before?”

Let’s see: party hacks today come from universities which are in many cases staffed by–former party hacks!

The difference between now and then: 50 years ago, the party hacks cut out the middle man and pocketed the money they would have wasted on tuition to Harvard. A self-made hack is every bit as slavish in his devotion to whomever is paying the bills as an educated one.

The Harvard-educated hack of today may be better equipped to transform his hackery into a PowerPoint presentation, however.

Brooks, as part of the ‘educated class’, is understandably reluctant to reveal to readers his unwashed hack attack.

This is bigotry against the uneducated hack straight-up.

I know he’s is working from a script, but Jimmy Fallon needs to hire Brooks as a writer–and quickly!

DOUCHEBAG SAYS “WHAT?”

You are entering the Bill Maher Zone: your level of commentary is now in free-fall.

From Maher: Palin’s Job at Fox Equivalent to Talking to Her Down Syndrome Baby:

How does one prepare for an upcoming appearance by Seth MacFarlane of Family Guy fame? If you’re Bill Maher, you follow up the Family Guy/Sarah Palin/Down Syndrome attack by doing an ‘exclusive rant’ for the Huffington Post which includes – you guessed it – a joke about Sarah Palin’s son, Trig.

Maher appeals to his lower-intellect audience by stating:

“…while we were off, Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News. Which is actually very similar to her day job – talking to a baby with Down Syndrome.”

In case, you forget, Bill Maher is a douchebag.

Bill Maher, in the course of his schtick, which, by the way is amazingly similar to what he does all day: which is acting like a douchebag.

Okay, you are now about to enter a Bill Maher-free Zone.

Feel free to raise the level of commentary back to its regular level.

NOTE: Don Surber has a much more reasoned take on this: Quote of the day.

See? Told you this was now a Maher-free zone and discourse would be back to normal.

J.D. HAYWORTH vs. JOHN McCAIN
Is this really a question conservatives have to spend much time answering?

People seem to be in a quandry because Sarah Palin is making some campaign appearances for Senator John McCain. Joe the Plumber is merely the most visible.

The question seems to be: “I like Sarah, but don’t like McCain. What ever am I to do?”

Surprisingly enough, that was the same question that millions of voters asked themselves in 2008. In that case, a great many held their noses for McCain while pulling the lever for Sarah.

What’s so hard about repeating that same strategy in 2010?

The only difference, it’s voters in Arizona who will make that decision while voters in the other 49 states cheer them on.

Adam Graham, Pajamas Media, sums it up nicely:

Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-Arizona) is preparing to run against Senator John McCain for the U.S. Senate in this year’s Republican primary in Arizona. Some on the right, such as Glenn Beck, don’t agree with the decision of Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to campaign for McCain in Arizona.

Conservative angst over what Sarah Palin does or doesn’t do in Arizona does little good. Palin will go there out of a sense of personal loyalty to a man who brought her to national attention. Personal loyalty can run deeper than political ideology. And while personal loyalty can be to a fault, leadership is impossible without it.

The question isn’t: “What should Sarah do?” The question is: “What should conservatives do?” Whether it’s the tea party movement or the March for Life, conservatives can move from the grassroots, and the smart conservative move is for conservatives to support J.D. Hayworth.

Sarah or McCain?

If you like neither but are conservative, this is a no-brainer: you vote Hayworth and go back to what you were doing. If you like neither and are a Progressive, you most likely won’t be voting for Hayworth, anyway.

Sarah or McCain?

The Progressives in the Mainstream Media may think that this is such a puzzle that conservatives will not be able to answer the question without Progressive assistance.

It’s really no question at all. Unless you happen to think that 1-there is no difference between Sarah Palin and John McCain; 2-you place no value upon personal loyalty; or, 3-you have the same level of intellect that you’ll find at the highest levels of the Progressive Media complex.

IN the case of 1 and 3, you wouldn’t be voting for John McCain, Sarah Palin or J.D. Haysworth to begin with, so it doesn’t really matter what you think.

In the case of 2, you probably are a career politician, so the only thing you’ll consider is personal gain, so it doesn’t matter who endorses who: it’s all a personal calculus.

See? All of those incredibly hard questions posed by the elites in the MSM prove to be easily-answered after all.

And for Progressive readers, we’ll spell it out: Conservatives should vote for J.D. Hayworth.

image: Pop Culture Madness