Breakfast Scramble: Barack Obama War Criminal?

More Obami temper tantrums, from Doug Powers @ Michelle Malkin:

In addition to threatening to veto the Cut, Cap and Balance bill (H.R. 2560), the White House is threatening to veto H.R. 2434, the 2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. Among other things, the White House is arguing against a proposed $65 million budget cut to the Executive Office.

Why would that cut be bad? Because the Executive Office needs all the deficit spending it can get in order to, in part, pay people to find ways to reduce the deficit

So if the Obami are so darned good at identifying savings, how came that can’t seem to identify any and how did they miss this gem, from Fox News:

The federal government helped fund a study that examined what effect a gay man’s penis size has on his sex life and general well-being.

The study was among several backed by the National Institutes of Health that have come under scrutiny from a group claiming the agency is wasting valuable tax dollars at a time when the country is trying to control its debt. This particular research resulted in a 2009 report titled, “The Association Between Penis Size and Sexual Health Among Men Who Have Sex with Men.”

Spanish temper tantrums, via Bruce McQuain, Questions and Observations:

A Spanish lawyer has formally accused Barack Obama of crimes against humanity for ordering the assassination of Osama bin Laden.Apparently

[…]

Daniel Fiol lodged a written complaint at the International Criminal Court accusing the US president of breaching the Geneva Convention.

Might put a dent in Dim Won’s foreign travel plans.  However the Spanish should remember that a state kidnapping of an American citizen would be an act of war.   May God have mercy on their souls.

Now extraditing Dim Won and Eric Holder to Mexico might well be in order.

Only in America, the air-conditioned poor houses, from Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, Heritage Foundation:

Each year for the past two decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty.” In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor. But what does it mean to be “poor” in America? How poor are America’s poor?

]…]

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

For all we talk about poverty, the Census Bureau simply does not measure poverty.    What the Census Bureau issues and purports to be a measure of poverty is simply the relative distribution of cash.   Actual poverty is the lack of access to the essential commodities of life.   Few sane and sober American lack them, and the Census bureau has never bothered to measure the population.

Stupid in Los Angeles,   Los Angeles Slimes:

Contrary to what congressional critics have been saying, a law passed during the George W. Bush administration does not ban incandescent bulbs. Rather, it phases in higher requirements for energy efficiency that the old incandescents — in use for more than 100 years since they were developed by Thomas Edison — do not meet because much of their energy creates heat rather than light. Starting in 2012, the traditional 100-watt bulbs go off the market, followed over the next two years by lower-wattage bulbs. California is moving ahead even more quickly, phasing out the 100-watt bulb this year.

Once the phase-out is fully in place, the law will save consumers about $12 billion a year in energy costs; the average California household will save $124 a year.

Earth to Los Angeles Times, if these new fangled Algore bulbs are actually better, consumers will actually buy them of their own free will, without needless intervention on the part of the state.