Field Stripping

At Sean Linnane's:

Katy Perry Won't Pose Nude

At People Magazine, "Katy Perry: I'd Rather 'Tease' Than Pose Nude."

Plus, "Katy Perry Sets Off 'Firework' For EMA 2010," and "Katy Perry On the Red Carpet at the 2010 EMA."

RELATED: At The Other McCain, "Finally, PJTV Discovers Rule 5," and "Approaching 5 Million Hits." And getting to 5 million hits entails a considerable bit of link-baiting, like the present post. I should be hitting 2 million at American Power by the end of the month.

At New Yorker: 'Clenched Fist' or 'Terrorist Fist Bump'

What's with The New Yorker's November 15th cover drawing featuring incoming GOP House Speaker John Boehner standing with President Obama in the Oval Office? While Obama is clearly extending his hand in what appears as a reluctant bid for cooperation, Boehner's hand is gathered in a fist. Is that a bump? The New Yorker says so, but with reference to public opinion: "Cover Story: Approval Bump?" But should the administration expect a bump after last Tuesday's Democrat debacle? No, according to Ryan Lizza's article from November 5th. Not unless Obama backs off from his aggressive left-wing policy agenda.

In contrast, Puff Ho's article is entitled, "John Boehner Gives Obama 'Terrorist Fist Bump' On New Yorker Cover." That's a clear retaliatory reference to New Yorker's July 2008 cover picture. Interestingly, though, the commentary at the essay suggests Boehner's extending the clench fist. Clearly, the title of the article was edited to maximize SEO and fever-swamp rage. Some folks at Puff Ho are still smarting at the image of Barack Hussein in Muslim garb:

In his inaugural address in January 2009, President Barack Obama promised a new era of diplomacy in foreign affairs. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history," he said. But, he continued, "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

He didn't know that he might as well have been speaking to the Republicans.

Opposing ObamaCare is Bigoted Asshattery!!

Well, I'm up to a trifecta at this point.

Here's yet another tweet, from Olby-Obama cultist Matt Osborne:

I've seen this guy around the 'sphere. His page is "Osborne Ink." Here's a sample: "They Are The Fear They Want Us To Feel."

PREVIOUSLY: "If You Oppose ObamaCare You're RAAAAACIST and UNEDUCATED!!", and "If You Tweet Your Opposition to ObamaCare You're REALLY RAAAAACIST!!"

And what the heck, follow me on Twitter: @AmPowerBlog.

If You Tweet Your Opposition to ObamaCare You're REALLY RAAAAACIST!!

Okay, here's a follow up to "If You Oppose ObamaCare You're RAAAAACIST and UNEDUCATED!!"

I fowarded that to some lefty tweeps at Single Payer's Twitter feed, and a few others in those threads.

And here's a reply from Mona Hussein Obama:

And that was cracking up a couple of my tweeting friendlies, Robert Stacy McCain and William Teach (on Twitter here and here).

If You Oppose ObamaCare You're RAAAAACIST and UNEDUCATED!!

Out of the blue, I got this on Twitter earlier this morning:

I replied here.

@SinglePlayer then blocked me, typical for a leftist totalitarian.

RELATED: At Doug Ross, "New England Journal of Medicine Inadvertently Hands House GOP the Game Plan for Starving ObamaCare." If you can't completely kill it (right away), squeeze funding until implementation becomes impossible:

The ACA contains 64 specific authorizations to spend up to $105.6 billion and 51 general authorizations to spend “such sums as are necessary” over the period between 2010 and 2019. None of these funds will flow, however, unless Congress enacts specific appropriation bills. In addition, section 1005 of the ACA appropriated $1 billion to support the cost of implementation in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).... [and the] ACA appropriated nothing for the Internal Revenue Service, which must collect the information needed to compute subsidies and pay them. The ACA also provides unlimited funding for grants to states to support the creation of health insurance exchanges (section 1311). But states will also incur substantially increased administrative costs to enroll millions of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries...

Without large additional appropriations, implementation will be crippled.

And thank goodness. That would be like a symphony.

See Dr. Marc Siegel, "ObamaCare Will Clog America's Medical System":

ObamaCare was lauded by many for covering all Americans with pre-existing conditions. That's not the issue. We're going to get into trouble because of the kinds of coverage that the new law mandates. There are no brakes on the system. Co-pays and deductibles will be kept low, and preventive services will have no co-pays at all. That sounds like a good deal for patients, yes? But without at least a pause to consider necessity and/or cost, expect waiting times to increase, ERs to be clogged and longer lead times needed to make an appointment.

Patients with new Medicaid cards who can't find a doctor will go where? To emergency rooms. The escalating costs of these visits (necessary and unnecessary) will be transferred directly to the American public, both in the form of taxes as well as escalating insurance premiums.

Beginning in 2014, insurance exchanges will be set up in every state so that individuals can choose a health insurance plan. This will help control costs, right? Wrong. Don't expect to find individually tailored plans or those with higher deductibles or co-pays. They won't be there because they can't receive the government stamp of approval.

In the new system, my patients will be able to see me as often as they'd like. But will they get the same level of care? I don't think so. I anticipate that more expensive chemotherapies and cardiac stents or transplants, for instance, will have a tougher time being approved, as is already the case in Canada.

Over on the public side, the new Independent Payment Advisory Board — established by the health reform law to "recommend proposals to limit Medicare spending growth" — will advise Medicare that some treatments are more essential and more cost-effective than others. I believe that value judgments inevitably will have to be made, reducing my options as a practicing physician. Private insurers will follow suit, as they often do.

During the battle over this reform, you often heard, even from President Obama, that you'd be able to keep the plan you have. What he didn't say — but what we now know — is that because of this new law, the private markets will have to remake their plans, that the costs will rise and that the plan you were told you could "keep" is in all likelihood no longer available. But when your plan changes, backers of reform will simply blame it on those evil private insurance companies.

The truth is, private health insurance is a low-profit industry, with profit margins of 4% compared with over 20% for major drug manufacturers. With the additional costs of no lifetime caps and no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, these companies will be compelled to raise their premiums in order to stay in business. The individual mandate is supposed to be the tradeoff by providing millions of new customers, but there is no guarantee that this additional volume will preserve profits with all the new regulations. This is what occurred in New York state in 1992, when a new law denied exclusion on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

Clogged emergency rooms, death-panel rationing, and reduced consumer choice.

That's what @SinglePayer is all about.

Bernardine Dohrn on the Real Terrorists

Saw this the other day at Verum Serum, but didn't get a chance to post:

Now also at Jennifer Rubin, "Dohrn vs. the Tea Party":

[Bernardine Dohrn] ... insists that the right is racist, armed (presumably, the Second Amendment is one that the hard left would rather do without), and violent. And she — who helped lead a violent, armed revolutionary group that resorted to bombs rather than the ballot box – is terribly concerned about the right’s dangerous propensities. And what of her past? She laughs — ah, well, they were trying to open a “front” in the heartland.

Remorse? Not from her. She still oozes with resentment, understandable given the utter lack of acceptance by the American people of her views. Perhaps her fury at the Tea Partiers, then, is nothing more than jealousy. After all, they are the embodiment of grassroots, peaceful change. And she is a has-been terrorist.

Post-Election Sunday Funnies

More cartoons at Flopping Aces, Jill Stanek, and Theo Spark's.

Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC

Just saw this ad for Sarah Palin's reality show. And at Wizbang Pop, "Sarah Palin's Alaska Photos: Women With Guns‎."

And a preview: "TLC Unveils Trailer for 'Sarah Palin's Alaska'."

The homepage is here: "Sarah Palin's Alaska."

And a bit on the controversy, "Palin Complains About Invasion of Privacy in Sarah Palin’s Alaska’s First Ep." Plus, David Weigel on Twitter: "Joe McGinniss lawyers up, demands video of him removed from 'Sarah Palin's Alaska'." And from the misogynist assholes at Firedoglake, "Did “Privacy Advocate” Palin Violate McGinniss’s Privacy Rights?"

'So Long Number One'

Via FRC Action:

American Power Gets Results on Twitter!

From my tweet buddy JohnnyA99:

And linked there: "Casting the Victoria's Secret Show."

Be sure to follow Johnny here, and AmPowerBlog is here.

I Whip It Real Hard, Real Hard...

Wicked cool video.

My youngest son digs Willow Smith. Kinda like the hip-hop gen's Jackson Pollock. And while Will Smith is leftist as all get out, you gotta give it up for his 7 year-old daughter:

Bombshell Fantasy 2010

A follow-up to last night's entry:

Christina Perri 'Jar of Hearts'

Because she's hotter than Pink ... Rule 5 material even.

Be sure to check Pirate's Cove for a Sunday roundup, and of course Linkmaster Smith:

Plus, check out Bob Belvedere and Irish Cicero, and The Real United States.

**********

And be sure to visit some of the other friends of American Power:

* Another Black Conservative.

* Astute Bloggers (Honorary).

* Blazing Cat Fur.

* The Blog Prof.

* Bob Belvedere.

* Classical Liberal.

* Daley Gator.

* Kathy Shaidle.

* Left Coast Rebel.

* Maggie's Notebook.

* Mind Numbed Robot.

* Not a Sheep.

* Pirate's Cove.

* POWIP.

* The Other McCain.

* Reaganite Republican (Honorary).

* Right Klik (Honorary).

* Saberpoint (Honorary).

* Serr8d (Honorary).

* Snooper's Report (Honorary).

* Stormbringer.

* Theo Spark.

* Washington Rebel.

* WyBlog.

BONUS: Don't forget Instapundit.

And drop your link in the comments to be added to the weekly bikini roundups!

Saturday Rule 5: Courtney Rachel Culkin

Via Zion's Trumpet:

Courtney Rachel Culkin was Playboy's "Playmate of the Month for April 2005."

More Rule 5 blogging at American Perspective and Mind-Numbed Robot.

Will Pink Walk With Obama?

I play a lot of idealistic left-wing music, and I like it. And I make fun with the songs, poking the lyrics back at dumb lefties. But Pink? My wife likes the CD. Okay, although let's just say Pink needs to update this tune for President Obama, especially following the Democrat debacle. How does Obama sleep at night during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?

Gloria Allred's Feminist Grievance Industry May Have Helped Sink Billionaire Meg Whitman

Yeah, it's obvious, but I'm responding to the folks at LAT. It's really one long gusher-piece on "the most famous woman attorney practicing law in the nation today..." See, "Legal Fray Still Suits Gloria Allred Just Fine." But note at the end of the quote below how the Times suggests that Allred's sponsorship of Nicandra Diaz Santillan pre-election publicity stunt may have helped decide the election:

When you walk into Gloria Allred's office to interview her, she hands you her book — "Fight Back and Win" — and suggests you read it. Immediately.

"Would you mind?" she asks. "I think it will answer some questions."

Smiling, she leaves you in the firm's conference room, with its long, glossy table and panoramic view of Los Angeles. This is where Allred holds most of the news conferences that have made her both famous and infamous — sitting at the head of the table, jaw set, arm wrapped tightly around a weepy client as cameras zoom in.

This afternoon, it's a study hall for a lone reporter frantically skimming the book subtitled "My Thirty-Year Fight Against Injustice — and How You Can Win Your Own Battles."

Whether you see this command cram course as an exercise in vanity or efficiency won't matter to Allred. As she writes in the book, "Early in my career, I decided that if I intended to be a strong advocate for women I couldn't be deterred by my critics."

She has not been. Allred has escorted into the spotlight a parade of castoff women — the TV star fired for being too pregnant, the banker fired for being too sexy, the jilted mistresses and wronged girlfriends of famous philanderers and murderers.

With her latest client — the sad-eyed housekeeper Nicandra Diaz Santillan — she may have helped spoil the gubernatorial chances of billionaire candidate Meg Whitman. After the housekeeper said she had worked for Whitman for nine years and then been fired for being undocumented, Whitman's poll numbers dropped and Jerry Brown's lead widened.

RTWT.

It wasn't just the Diaz scandal, but if some Latinos were on the fence, the explosive allegations may have shifted quite a number of undecideds.

RELATED: "The Immigrant Vote in California."

Americans' Message to New Congress: Less Gov't, Please

At IBD (via Glenn Reynolds):

A new IBD/TIPP poll on public attitudes suggests that Tuesday's event was less an election than an intervention: Stop what you are doing; you're hurting us all.

A majority of the public wants Washington to stop the spending that has exploded the budget deficit. In a listing of top priorities for Congress, cutting the deficit by cutting spending came in No. 1, cited by 53%. (Fully 73%, including a majority of Democrats, said this is a "high priority.")

"As reflected by the outcome of the midterm elections, the public is sending a clear message to Washington: They want the government to live within its means," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the poll.

Rounding out the top five on the public's list, pluralities also want Washington to: 2) repeal or revise the new health care law, 3) provide more protection against terrorism, 4) reduce illegal immigration and 5) pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by next year.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the presumed incoming House speaker, has signaled that spending cuts and repealing ObamaCare will be the priorities for the GOP majority.

But Democratic leaders are doubling down. President Obama flatly rejected in a press conference that his policies were to blame for the election losses. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday she would run for House minority leader in the next Congress. With so many moderates in the caucus out in January, she may win.

"We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back," she said in a statement.

But most Americans — 57% — said an ObamaCare rollback should be a "high priority" for Congress — including 46% who say it's very important.

The public is cool to liberal solutions to cut the deficit or boost the economy. Just 7% say deficit-cutting tax hikes are a top priority. Only 14% say the same about a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes.

Only 29% support the idea of more government spending to stimulate the economy; just 14% say it should be a top agenda item.

Anyone who looks at politics with a shred of pragmatism --- and even ideologues can be pragmatic at times, which includes admitting failure --- can see that the left's meme that Obama-Dems never truly advanced a progressive agenda is pure bull. The left is indeed doubling down, and one of the more despicable indicators of this --- if not outright evil --- is the increasingly strident allegations of Republicans as racist. It just proves to me that conservatives still have a lot of work to do, and of course retiring the Obamunist in the Oval Office should be job one.

Rachel Maddow Blows a Vessel, Claims MSNBC is Real 'News Operation'

I've already posted on Keith Olbermann. I say let the guy rot in the wasteland of forgotten left-wing bloviators. But the suspension debate at MSNBC lingers today with the pathetic Rachel Maddow, the fever-swamp leftist who happens to have a her own show: "On Cable News and Cable Not-News" (via Memeorandum).

Maddow can holler 'till she's blue in the face, but the fact remains: As much as the execs at GE would like to pretend otherwise, the MSNBC cable outlet is as partisan as they come. FOX News is a modern partisan news outfit that understands that the media environment today is an extension of the political battlefield, and Roger Ailes doesn't let meaningless rules and ridiculous pretensions get in the way of the problem at hand, which is to destroy the Democrat-Socialist partisan agenda. And while it's pretty sad watching Rachel Maddow preen about how ethical and upstanding MSNBC operatives are, anyone who watches the network knows that MSNBC wants nothing less than what FOX News wants, which is the obliteration of the ideological enemy. The problem for MSNBC, of course, is that FOX News has successfully compartmentalized it's real hard-news reporting from its opinion and commentary broadcasts. And it was no contest on election night, November 2nd: "Fox News 'Fair & Balanced' Offered Best Election Eve Coverage … Shocker, Even Better Than MSNBC." But Maddow's sugar daddy is Keith Olbermann, so she'll be making a stink until the commie cows come home --- one more reason why the network's ratings are in the tank: "Fox News Dominates Cable News Election Night Coverage."

Anyway, lots of lefty outrage across the 'sphere, but check this out from the brilliant minds at Comments From Left Field:

MSNBC is a serious news organization, not a gauche political op like Fox. This appears to be the message MSNBC brass are attempting to send, following criticism from both wingnut and Beltway pundits (“right-wing cackling and old media cluck-cluck-clucking,” as Maddow put it) about the network’s purportedly “biased” election night coverage this past Tuesday: We are not Fox Left. We still inhabit the same void of vainly deluded fauxjectivity like our Village brethren do.

Okay. Right.

Actually, this guy's got a bit of the objectivity that's eluding those on the brain-blown left:

Color me unimpressed with the outpouring of outrage and garment-rending from liberal colleagues in the wake of MSNBC's suspension of shouting head Keith Olbermann.

Fine, fine, fine. Fox has no such enforced rules about political contributions from commentators and news presenters. This would never happen to a conservative. NBC's rules are antiquated in a participatory, opinionated age of "news." Stipulated. Noted. Filed.

But Olbermann certainly knew the rules and made no attempt to tell management he had broken them, when he surreptitiously made contributions to three Democratic Congressional candidates. In accepting millions from the corporation paying him to fulminate and snort nightly, he certainly agreed to the points in his contract above the signatures. And whatever the outraged left may claim about his actual status, it's clear that Olbermann considers himself a journalist - and a worthy successor to Edward R. Murrow, to boot. And he's one who regularly castigates right-wing media for abandoning the strictures of real journalism. Keith's stately silence on the matter thus far is, quite frankly, his most eloquent statement in quite some time.*

Would that it extended to the chirping chorus around the rest of MSNBC's soundstage - and quite frankly, in the progressive blogosphere, which seems to be pouring out more energy and gut-level anger into defending Olbermann than it did in defending the unappreciated accomplishments of the current Democratic administration and the now lame-duck Democratic Congress.

There are many liberals who root for MSNBC to grow into a counterweight to the Fox monstrosity, our side's version of fair and balanced and loud.

Count me out. It's bad strategy, it's bad karma - and it's bad television. The MSNBC squad is almost painful to watch these days. On election night, the roiling tension on the desk was a death star of hair-shirted self-flagellation, a black hole of anger and resentment that almost sucked the sunny Rachel Maddow into its vortex. O'Donnell vs. Matthews vs. Olbermann. Feel the love. Jagger and Richards are warmer at this point. As seat-squirmingly painful as any Larry David show, but without the yucks. And the freak show vitriol of the mid-term coverage was in direct opposition to the preening West Wing-style house ads that MSNBC has rolled out to push its "Lean Forward" line-up of lefties. God, is there anything that smacks of the white upper middle class patriarchy more than the ad featuring Lawrence O'Donnell leaving the MSNBC offices late at night, and the moment he touches the shoulder of the black security guy on his way out?

Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights'

The latest installment:

Previously:

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation'."

* "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law'."