David Online

Let’s hope the good folks in Fargo, Cleveland and Denver are enjoying their winter because the Obama administration announced today that in order to combat global warming it is developing plans to make the world colder.

President Obama’s new science adviser John Holdren told the Associated Press today that one of the options being discussed is shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. Holdren said, “It’s got to be looked at. We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”

He went on to say he has raised his thoughts on tinkering with the climate in administration discussions.

“Mr. Wizard” did not say whether President Obama also thought tinkering with the climate was a fabulous idea or not.

Holdren said if polluting the atmosphere…wait a minute! Didn’t we just spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thirty or so years to get rid of pollution in the atmosphere? Anyway, Holdren said if polluting the atmosphere doesn’t work, they’re going to cover the planet with artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide out of the air and store it somewhere.

Just curious, but what happens if the Obama administration re-pollutes the atmosphere, sucks all the carbon dioxide out of the air and the next thing you know we’re headed into a new ice age with glaciers advancing on Fargo, Cleveland and Denver? What then Mr. Science Guy?

And I thought the guy who claimed he could turn lead into gold was crazy.

In a childish attempt to erase “anything Bush”, the Obama administration has reached new heights of asinine liberal political correctness. By executive order the Obama administration has declared the term “War on Terror” will no longer be used. In its place, the administration will now refer to it as “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

At the same time, newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has decreed that acts of terrorism will no longer be called such, but instead will be termed “Man-Caused Disasters.”

If I were one of the family members or friends of the 3,000 slaughtered victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I would be insulted to be told now that they merely died in a “man-caused disaster”

When President Obama briefed Congressional leaders at the White House last week on his plans to send more troops to Afghanistan, Senator Harry “This War is Lost” Reid offered some advice: Whatever you do, he told the president, don’t call it a “surge.”

Last Friday the Obama administration said it would also be abolishing the term “enemy combatant” in describing radical Islamic terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center and are trying to kill U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has not thought up a new name yet, but the New York Times did say that the new term would have a requirement that in the future all captured terrorists detainees would have to have “substantially supported” al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

If the only requirement is that a person “substantially supported” al-Qaeda and the Taliban, maybe the new term should be “liberal Democrats”.

The “war on terror” term is obviously not technically correct as “terror” is a tactic. But then no one had any problem recognizing what the “war on terror” meant. “Overseas Contingency Operation” sounds more like some tourist whose luggage got lost while vacationing in Europe.

James Carafano of The Heritage Foundation makes a good point:

By deliberately trying not to use the T word they run a serious political risk.  If something does happen, they’ll be accused of taking their eye off the ball and no amount of explanation after the fact will suffice.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda think we’re in a war. Our troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan think we’re in a war. Our soldier’s families think we’re in a war. Apparently the only people who do not think we are in a war is the Obama administration.