Heh

Funny. Except, of course, the "privatization of Social Security" was the optional plan for people to invest some of their Social Security "benefits" in the market...and was wildly popular with young people.

Whatever, I ain't gettin' into this now.

No One's Buying It Anymore

AP:

Appealing for bipartisanship in a town where it's hard to find, President Barack Obama sat down with Democrats and Republicans Tuesday to spur cooperation on job creation, deficit reduction and health care overhaul. He promised to do his part — but warned he would take Republicans to task if they don't do the same.

Obama presumably then went on accuse the GOP of being teabagging obstructionist fascists in speech #598. Oh, and racists, too.

He's so pathetic.

He's so transparent.

His administration? Hell, no. Probably the least ever. But his motives and tactics are Casper-quality.

MorOns Lying Like A Rug

It doesn't take much to stir up a MorOn, I guess...demagogic lies are, of course, at the top of the list. Hence their latest demand for action:

Last month, the Obama administration announced a new tax on the biggest banks to get our bailout money back.

Except there's just one problem with this. According to the guy in charge of the program there are only five 'banks' that have not paid back their "bailout money".

AIG is one. They're an investment and insurance firm that was "too big to fail".

And the other 4?

GM. GMAC. Chrysler. Chrysler Financial.

Interesting list, don't you think?

So as the four companies Obama took over and handed over mostly to the unions fails to pay back "bailout money", who has paid back their "bailout money"?

JP Morgan, American Express, Capital One, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley...

Demagogue (n): a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

Demagogue (v): to behave like a demagogue

What a shock that the big banks that were forced to take 'bailout loans', paid them back, and are still being scapegoated, slandered, and smeared by the left and the Democrats are starting to give to the GOP instead of Democrats, isn't it?

Or Are You Just Glad To See Me?

Could it be? Could the GOP actually be growing a pair? I mean, they've got like 60% of the populace behind them at this point, they should act like it. Maybe they are:

Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses...

If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation?...

Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such "experts?" Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent?...

...These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.

The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington. We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Admissions Are Always Good

It's always best when they admit it, as here from Feb. 5:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Tina, for the longest time, comedians couldn't find the funny in Barack Obama.

[Former Vanity Fair and New Yorker editor] BROWN: No, he got the best press known to man. Let’s face it.

KURTZ: In the history of civilization.

BROWN: In the history of civilization, incredible. I mean, the Nobel prize, in a way, sort of reflected that. Because all that voting was happening just when he was, you know, all of that was at its climax. The problem for Obama is, that he basically campaigned for 14 months on a completely different America, really. It was all about, "I'm not Bush. I’m going to bring everyone together. I'm going to close Guantanamo Bay. I'm going to give you health care." But the point that he's elected, the curtain comes down. America is a gridlocked, broke place...

BROWN: But [Edwards] hardly seems to have an authentic mode in his body. This is a guy who had his Armani labels cut out of his suits. Who showed up in a beat-up truck, rather than have the expensive cars in his own garages. Who never read his briefing books. You know? Who was, of course, you know, defrauding everybody in this affair to Rielle Hunter. And expecting everyone to be his beard, tormenting his wife with lies. I mean, the man was practically a snake of all-time. And he got great press. This is a press story, as well. Remember who broke this story of the Rielle hunter affair. The National Enquirer. Now up for a Pulitzer Prize...

[Meghan] MCCAIN: I think, much like you guys- Where was the press when this was going on? Who was reporting on this? And when you find out later on that many people in the press did know about the affair going on, it could have changed the course of the election. Talk to Hillary Clinton about how she feels. Why isn't the press doing their jobs? What are these secrets?

KURTZ: But, could the press far go too far in chasing rumors about a politician, whether it's your father or anybody else, when they don't have the evidence?

MCCAIN: I don't consider myself a member of the press. I'm a columnist. So, I don’t know.

KURTZ: Well, tell us what you think about, you know- In other words, yes. We often hear rumors about politicians. But there's often a question about whether you publish those rumors because they may not be true.

MCCAIN: I just think it’s fascinating that it took a National Enquirer person to do it.

Funny

Funny thing happened tonight...I put on the Superbowl and a football game broke out.

So, can anyone think of a better term for the way Indianapolis* looked than "lackadaisical"?

-

* With the exception of Joseph Addai - I don't think I've ever seen him run harder.

Pro-Abortion Lobby Hosed

THAT was it? THAT was the big 'pro-life/anti-abortion' ad that had the left and the anti-choice (they don't seem to consider not having an abortion a choice) crowd in such a lather?

HA!

Oh my.

THAT?

Wow.

Focus on the Family and their allies totally hosed the left. And they did it with the most innocuous, frankly - forgettable, ad I can imagine.

Wow.

A Label I Didn't Want To Create

Sigh. I tried to avoid this as long as I could. But these actions are simply inexcusable:

We were told not to worry when the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was taken into custody and Mirandized almost immediately. We were told we got all the information he had in 50 minutes. Larry King has done longer and better interviews.

Now the story has changed. Apparently we didn't get all the information he had, for the administration has publicly announced that Mr. Abdulmutallab is now cooperating with authorities, presumably telling us what he really knows about the intentions of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. If so, that is good news.

What's not so good news is that to score political points, the administration has told the world and al-Qaida that we are learning what Abdulmutallab knows, and now al-Qaida will know we know what he knows. They will change their plans, move their assets and attempt to thwart any U.S. action based on any valuable information he may be providing...

This announcement made Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., justifiably furious. Bond promptly dashed off a letter of protest to President Barack Obama. In the letter he noted that on Feb. 1 the leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee received notice from the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning Abdulmutallab's recent willingness to provide critical information.

The problem, Bond said, was that a short 24 hours later "White House staff assembled members of the media to announce Abdulmutallab's cooperation and to laud the events that led to his decision to cooperate with law enforcement personnel. This information immediately hit the airwaves globally, and, no doubt, reached the ears of our enemies abroad."...

"FBI officials," Bond wrote, "stressed to me the importance of not disclosing the fact of (Abdulmutallab's) cooperation in order to protect on-going and follow-on operations to neutralize additional threats to the American public; FBI Director Robert Mueller personally stressed to me that keeping the fact of (Abdulmutallab's) cooperation secret was vital to prevent future attacks against the United States."

Looking Back - How Fred Lebrun Got The 23rd All Wrong

Sorry this one sat on the table for so long. I knew eventually I'd have to delve into the ickyness that is Fred LeDuckhunter's take on the 23 special election we just went through. It's just ridiculous. The column ran on Nov. 1, 2009:

It was a shocker to see Republican Dede Scozzafava pull the plug at the last minute on her campaign for the 23rd Congressional District seat vacated by John McHugh to become secretary of the Army...

While Scozzafava is taking one for the party by clearing the field for Hoffman, her name remains on Tuesday's ballot. She released her supporters so they could donate and work for anyone else if they wished, but she did not tell them not to vote for her.

Great analysis. She 'took one for the team' by 1) not endorsing the new 'team' captain (Hoffman); 2) not telling her supporters to not vote for her anyway; 3) and by endorsing the Democrat! Where, exactly, in this did she do anything to help 'the team'?? Brilliant analysis, Fred.

What constitutes a good Republican has been imperiously redefined. That is, deep right or not at all. Moderates, line up against the wall.

Anybody see any moderates around here? Here's a hint, Fred, pro-abortion, pro-big government, pro-Obama...these ain't moderate traits in a Republican, babe. Not by a long shot.

This has been an intensely Republican district since the 1870s...

I guess except for the whole 'voted for Obama' thing. Right, Fred?

John McHugh was re-elected from this district by more than 60 percent of the vote every time out, and he was almost the same kind of Republican as Scozzafava. Moderate, a Rockefeller Republican, and not afraid to buck the more conservative elements of his party.

Really, Fred? John McHugh had a lifetime ACU rating of 71.55. That's pretty darned conservative, Fred. A pro-abortion, big spending, big government voter wouldn't rack up a 71.55 from the American Conservative Union, Fred. His score puts him about even with Rep. Peter King, who I'm sure the press would call pretty conservative.

The point here is that the natural scale of Republicanism in this North Country district, when you factor in colleges in Plattsburgh, Canton, Oswego, Potsdam and elsewhere, and past voting patterns, is moderate. Not deep right. They went for Obama, for goodness sake.

What kind of analysis is this? First the voters are angry that she's too liberal, then the guy they had was pretty liberal, then the voters are pretty liberal. Um, those things don't make sense when you put them together, Fred. Doesn't anyone proof your columns? The voters don't want a conservative candidate but "conservative fury" made a liberal Republican drop out? Am I missing something?

But an intensely negative campaign lambasting his opponent, Scott Murphy, backfired. As in the contest up north, the national big boys and girls took over the reins of the local campaign. It was disastrous for Tedisco.

Now that you got right, Fred. Which is why the 23rd was such a different dynamic - the nationals supported Hoffman, but didn't dictate anything. This was much more grassroots driven.

We'll know soon enough how an intensely negative campaign, abetted by nightly haranguing on national talk radio, and the intrusion of the likes of the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, plays out in the 23rd.

Let's be clear here - Fred is now telling us that simply endorsing a candidate - NOT campaigning, NOT fundraising, NOT appearing in ads, JUST saying you endorse them - that is now considered "intrusion". That's a pathetic accusation, Fred. Absolutely pathetic. The Democrat had national Democrats CAMPAIGNING for him. I guess that's not "intrusion", Fred? Pathetic accusation.

National Democrats are not unmindful of opportunity here as a result of all these conservative high jinks. They've poured money and talent into the Owen campaign. Even Vice President Joe Biden was making a last-minute pass through the district for Owen, a corporate lawyer from Plattsburgh.

Just to be clear here, Fred has accused REPUBLICANS of nationalizing the race and outside parties of interfering. Then he notes how "National Democrats...poured money and talent into the Owen campaign". He notes that Biden himself showed up. Fred, that's a double standard and it's a disgrace for anyone in the media. A conservative says they endorse Hoffman and they're "interfering". Biden shows up and...well, Fred? Fred claims "high-profile outsider conservatives who have hijacked this contest and made a major national issue of it." But Biden shows up and "National Democrats" pour in the dough and, yup, still just those damned conservatives that made a national matter out of it. PATHETIC, Fred.

Sadly enough, considering the undeserved pounding Dede Scozzafava took...

"undeserved"? She endorsed the fricking Democrat, Fred. How much more obvious could she be? What would she have to do to actually deserve what she got? Murder the conservative candidate?

Ridiculous. Lame. Pathetic. One-sided. Double-standard-saturated.

Worst of all, Fred...

Wrong. Almost all wrong.

Our New Military Strategy - Avoid The Bad Guys?

I saw this the other day in the paper and I really just didn't know what to think: New air strategy is to do no harm

He saw children playing soccer in an adjacent field, trucks traveling on the main throughway and, several hundred yards away, a glorious range of mountains touching the sky.

He knew that was the best place to drop a bomb from an F-16 — where there was no chance of striking anyone or anything.

"See over there," he said, pointing. "It's flat, so there's no chance of debris falling on anyone."

This is the new U.S. air campaign in much of Afghanistan.

Six months after Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S commander in Afghanistan, issued a tactical directive urging troops to walk away from a fight rather than risk killing civilians, the Air Force is engaging in a campaign of restraint. Instead of air strikes, airmen increasingly are searching for places they can drop bombs that can be heard and felt, but where they're unlikely to damage buildings or hurt people...

Privately, ground troops feel that the restraint is putting them in greater danger, and so far, they aren't seeing results.

I mean, I just don't get it. We're spending, what, thousands of dollars to blow up dirt? I'm pretty sure the Taliban already knows that we know how to blow stuff up. So we're supposed to impress them by blowing up dirt? Of course not...as they note, it's not accomplishing anything.

Don't get me wrong, we should certainly do our best to limit civilian casualties. That's what we do now. Hell, we do our best to limit enemy casualties. But if we're not going to blow up enemies then stop dropping bombs on empty spaces. Stop dropping bombs seemingly at random - have they considered that that might make people look at us better? That we won't be blowing up stuff for no apparent reason?

I just don't get it.

And, sadly, neither do our troops. My goodness, if you're not going to let them win, let them come home and start preparing to defend our borders...because if we refuse to meet them there we'll surely meet them here.

Times Union Continues Violating Own Policies (And More On Citizens United)

I guess it is hard to criticize the Times Union for printing inaccurate accusations after the President himself makes them in his State of the Union address. Nevertheless, we must press on and continue attempting to hold our press to a high standard. The Times Union has again failed to live up to a simple standard of honesty or even their own written standard that disallows inaccurate accusations in Letters to the Editor.

James Brown of Ballston Spa's letter on Feb. 2 should not have been printed without correction:

...the Supreme Court overturned a hundred years of precedent to permit unlimited campaign contributions by corporations and other interest groups...

-

I'm going to go ahead and glom onto this post to provide some more depth on Citizens United v FCC. You can find the full text here: link. Not being a great and powerful wizard constitutional scholar like Obama, I can just point out some things that you might not see in the press.

Your Random Saturday

David Limbaugh on the lying liar:

Though it's true that the deficit for President George W. Bush's final year in office was close to $1.3 trillion, it must be noted that Obama and his fellow Democratic-controlled Congress members approved the TARP bailouts and are largely responsible for the other budget expenditures leading to that record deficit...

Despite those factors, "the budget deficit still stood at just $162 billion when the recession began in late 2007. The larger subsequent deficits have been driven by the recession (which Obama did acknowledge), the financial bailouts, the President's stimulus bill, and large discretionary spending hikes enacted by a Democratic Congress."...

Granted, a major portion of the high deficits under the Democratic Congress can be attributed to TARP, which the Bush administration proposed (and Democrats approved). But that was -- to borrow a Dick Cheney phrase -- a one-off event. Neither Bush nor his would-be successor John McCain had any intention of repeating TARP (which I'm not defending), and their goal was that the TARP monies be repaid -- and much of them reportedly have been. Republicans had no plans to impose an $800 billion "stimulus" package.

Rebecca Hagelin, um, about that teen pregnancy 'report':

In their latest attempt to kill abstinence education, Guttmacher activists use sweeping statements to intentionally mislead the media and general public that they know will never peruse the full report of the latest statistics...

Here are a few of the key stats missing from the Guttmacher “sound bites”: When they make the sweeping statement that "teen pregnancies have increased by 3 %", what they aren't telling you is that among girls 14 years and younger, the pregnancy rate actually continues to decrease. When they say that the pregnancy rate for 15-19-year-olds has increased for the first time in a decade, what’s missing is the fact that the sharp increase was actually for 18 and 19 year-olds. (Not coincidentally, that is the precise time many in that age group head to the great world of relativism and free-sex known as "college" where abstinence education is non-existent.)

Oh, and don't miss the report that just came out again demonstrating that abstinence education appears to be more successful than other sex-ed: link.

Obama Needs A History Lesson

After Reagan (with help) won the Cold War and Bush promptly wrapped up the first Gulf War, Clinton received a rare boon, not seen in generations - a peace dividend. For the first time we were truly at 'peace', as the worldwide muslim terrorist uprising was not yet in full swing.

Clinton capitalized on this peace dividend by slashing our intelligence and military services. At 'peace' it was thought to be ok to cut spending on those items, so obviously critical previously.

Well, we know how that played out when Bush and Rumsfeld had to whip up a military and especially intelligence service on the fly.

So where we find ourselves now is a place where Obama wants to spend, well, I'm not sure where we're at...jabillions?...of dollars on domestic stuff, basically to take over the private sector of the nation and make it public...that's the short answer. And while it's not being touted...where is some of the offsetting going to come from (he can't just go and bankrupt the nation right away, it would be too obvious)?

Hey, how about national defense?! Basically, what we are seeing is an attempt to cash in a 'peace dividend' at a time when we are actively at war in Afghanistan, phasing out of a war in Iraq, and still guarding against muslim terrorists worldwide. Iran, in particular, is making noises that should not be ignored and could burst into flame in an instant, particularly if the uprisings they are seeing really start to turn up the heat on the leadership there. So, without peace, Obama still wants to make our military cut corners. Oh, and China is spending their own jabillions on their military.

In particular, we've previously discussed our air capabilities. For a long time now the US has been able to rely on absolute air superiority over, well, everyone. Air superiority turned our march into Baghdad a (relative) cakewalk, our liberation of Kuwait a (relative) cakewalk, our driving the Taliban into caves a (relative) cakewalk.

I've noted the issue with the F-22 before (link, link, link, link). Well, it turns out the news is even worse than we feared. The low-budget, low-performing "replacement" for the F-22, the F-35, is behind schedule, over-budget, and we're in danger of having a way-understaffed force in the air. IBD explains:

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that was supposed to be America's frontline fighter for the foreseeable future is in big trouble. Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the general in charge of the program this week amid concerns of spiraling costs and program delays...

Further program delays will drive up per-unit costs, the wings are literally falling off our F-15s and F-16s, and the administration has killed further production of the F-22 Raptor. With what will we fight?...

Production of the F-22 Raptor was capped at 187 in the defense cuts slated for the fiscal 2010 budget, with the last aircraft slated to be delivered in late 2011 or early 2012. It was felt we couldn't afford both an F-22 dedicated to air superiority and the F-35, even though the latter is vastly inferior in both air-to-air combat and ground-defense penetration.

The Raptor is perhaps the only plane that could evade the sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system Russia has contracted to sell Iran. "Only the F-22 can survive in airspace defended by increasingly capable surface-to-air missiles," declares Air Force Association President Mike Dunn.

The F-22 can fly 300 to 400 mph faster and two miles higher than the F-35. The F-35 is cheaper, but you get what you pay for. And the F-22 is flying now, when we need it.

While we spend untold billions to create nonexistent jobs in nonexistent zip codes in nonexistent congressional districts, our defense needs go wanting. Reopening the F-22 production lines would aid our economic as well as national security. At stake is not only America's continued air dominance, but also 95,000 highly paid and highly skilled jobs in 44 states. How about saving them?

Russia recently announced the first flight of its "fifth-generation" stealth fighter, scheduled for delivery in 2013 with serial production beginning in 2015. The Chinese Air Force has announced that it has a F-22 type aircraft ready to make its first flight within a year. The Chinese believe this aircraft will enter service within 10 years.

Clearly we can't afford to wait or accept a troubled and less capable aircraft merely because it's less expensive. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may want to freeze defense spending, but we ask the question: What price freedom?

Dare we say it? Maybe not yet...but it's starting to sound a lot like the 'memocrats are aloft on tree-fence'.

Purely Busting On MSNBC

If you have no interest in watching Rachel Maddow get dragged through the mud for a chronic allergy to the truth, just run along and find a more appealing post. Thanks.

Let's Amend The Constitution - And Meanwhile We'll Just Violate It!

Well, the MorOn.org'ers have apparently finally stopped yipping and piddling on the couch long enough for a lawyer to explain to them that their previous plan, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to encourage Congress to pass a new unconstitutional law restricting the free speech of corporations, was, well - stupid.

They seem finally to have grasped the message that if your desire is unconstitutional then you have to amend the Constitution to get away with it. So now they want you to fax your Congressional representatives and encourage them to get busy passing an amendment to the Constitution restricting the free speech of a disfavored (by some) group. No word, yet, on whether tobacco lobbyists, anti-abortion protesters, FoxNews reporters, or military recruiters are next to be targeted for "special" treatment.

But the best part is their interim plan:

However, because it can take a while to pass a constitutional amendment, we'll keep pushing Congress to immediately pass public financing legislation, so that grassroots candidates can compete while relying on small donors from their district.

Soooooo, in the interim their plan is to get Congress to pass another unconstitutional law until they get around to passing an amendment...which will never happen. Because people, that is, non-leftist people, are not going to amend the Constitution to explicitly take away the free speech rights of one type of assembly.

There are historical comparisons to be made...but I'd have to use all sorts of words that are considered bad form nowadays coughcoughcommunistscough.

Groan!

First CBS slammed a pie in their own faces...a ketchup pie. Their 'news' department had ridiculed their interpretation of a Reagan-era proposal that I think allowed schools to count ketchup as a vegetable serving, something like that, anyway they directly mocked Reagan over it. Then, a few years later, they released some sort of 'factoid of the day' or something noting that ketchup is the same as a serving of vegetables or something.

Now it seems NBC is taking a self-wielded fried chicken drumstick to the chin...I have to warn you, this is just stupefying. In honor of Black History Month the NBC cafeteria served up:

fried chicken
collard greens
black eyed peas

No word on whether dessert featured watermelon.

Now, don't get me wrong, despite the poor taste involved with what was surely good tasting food, I don't even want to get into what this does on some sort of eternally-grudge-holding race relations level, all I want to focus on is the hypocrisy, as noted by the posters.

Can you imagine the level of outrage of a picture tweeted of Sean Hannity walking into the Fox cafeteria with that sign outside? Can you? Cuz I don't think I can.

Front page headlines. Leftwing blog sites literally imploding. I mean actually imploding and sucking surrounding blocks into some kind of black hole. 9 out of 10 MSNBC hosts (do they have 10 show left?) with one or more of the following: 1) heads exploded; 2) hair shaved off; 3) naked save for a sandwich board screaming for vengeance in the streets. Al Sharpton would probably wondering how he ended up on the moon. Jesse Jackson would be leading a torch-bearing mob to their office. Obama would urge immediate passage of emergency funding on the order of $880 billion to the NAACP.

If this is typical of the enlightened atmosphere at NBC it's little wonder that Tingles Matthews was only just the other day able to stop being hyper-aware of Obama's blackness for a few minutes for the first time. I'm beginning to think the headlines they really wanted to run are along the lines of "Obama running for president - he's BLACK, people! BLACK! Did you notice he's BLACK!? Did we mention he's BLACK!? And McCain's really old and NOT BLACK LIKE OBAMA!"

What The Fudge Is Going On?

From the AP:

The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said Friday.

The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

Alright, what the hell is going on? For the first time in a long while the AP has correctly used the word "unexpectedly". The unemployment rate was expected to go to 10.1% on the heels of continued job losses.

At first this read like typical bad news disguised as good (actually I was afraid of outright manipulation of the numbers - not so far-fetched for administration that wanted to put the census in charge of a partisan employee instead of the federal office it belongs in), but I'm not so sure - this actually looks like good news. When I saw that there were continued losses but a lower unemployment rate the first reaction is 'more people are dropping out of the job market', which would cause the rate to continue to drop. (If all unemployed people stopped looking for work the unemployment rate would drop to 0%.)

But then I see that they're finding people saying they're working. What this means, I'm pretty sure, is that self-employment and very small businesses are showing signs of life. This is good news. These are areas the government has not put the fear of God taxes into. These are 'safer' areas (for tax purposes). It's also a sign that people are getting fed up with the lack of jobs and are doing something about it themselves. That is good news. It also has nothing to do with Obama - the gains, that is. It has nothing to do with massive deficit spending - the gains, that is. It's the American spirit rising up.

This could be the start of the recovery that we were supposed to see starting last summer. Let's hope so - and let's hope that the election of Scott Brown means that the Democrats won't be able to smother it in the crib.*

If nothing else, this is demonstrating that nobody knows what the fudge is really going on - good news is "unexpected" - bad news is "unexpected"...long story short - nobody knows what to expect from one day to the next. And that's not good.

UPDATE - it seems that this report may, indeed, have not taken 'drop-outs' into account - so this might be another illusory drop after all.

--

*Just to be clear, I don't mean Democrats are actually smothering people in their cribs!

This Is Getting Ridiculous

Did you see the markets today? Dropped like a rock - the Dow went under 10,000 again before recovering a bit.

But read deeper.

GDP grew in 4Q09, and likely grew even not counting just the government growth.

Unemployment has kinda sorta stabilized - albeit way too high (remember when Democrats were wetting their pants because unemployment was "too high" under Bush and his "jobless recovery" at 5%? my how times change).

And, most importantly, businesses are beating estimates, which primarily fueled the recent stock market gains (coupled with energy movement and weakness in the dollar, then strength, etc.).

So why isn't the economy recovering? Businesses have cut to the bone and are doing OK. But they're not hiring...they're not cutting too much anymore, not in great, wide swathes, anyway.

Seriously...is there any explanation other than that they're still scared out of their wits about what Congress and Obama are going to do. What industry are they going to take over next? What industry or business are they going to kneecap? Who's going to get their taxes increased? Who's going to get the sweetheart deal from the government? Are they going to force them to cut their business back to 1900 levels or spend a fortune to keep producing the way they are now? Are their shipping costs (due to fuel) going to skyrocket? Heating costs at their factories? Electricity costs that will "necessarily skyrocket" according to Obama's stated plans?

They've got no freakin' clue. So they've cut to the bone and are making do as best as they are able for now...and refuse to...

wait for it...

invest in their businesses to grow them.

You know...that whole thing where conservatives and realist economists explain how when you free businesses and cut taxes "the rich" invest their "ill-gotten gains" in businesses and ventures so that they can make more "evil profits" and, in the process, employ more people and make people's lives better? And how, when you do the opposite, they refuse to take out their wallet, batten down the hatches, and hold tight until things become more welcoming for them?

Yeah. That. So much for the reason why we're at 10+% unemployment (over 15% real and over 20% in some states) being a mystery or "unexpected". Only people that think Arthur Laffer and Thomas Sowell are idiots are surprised by what's going on. And people that have never run a business. Which explains damned near the entire Democratic leadership and all but the tiniest slice of the people in the White House.

Twisted Minds

Has it dawned on anyone else how ludicrous and twisted the insult "climate change skeptic" is?

Think about it for a moment if you haven't.

There are, according to the left, believers and deniers.

Believers believe that man is causing the climate to dangerously shift.

Deniers believe that man is not causing significant shifting of the climate.

Think about it again.

The one thing everyone (everyone with an IQ above room temperature) agrees on is that climate changes. I mean, it has to. Is it 75 degrees and cloudy every day everywhere all the time as it has always been?

Of course not. Climate changes.

Deniers or skeptics believe that climate change is just that - changes in climate. They believe that the earth's ecosystem is very complex and the effects of mankind are perhaps measurable, but not significant to the point that they drive changes in the climate of the entire world (and other planets if we're to believe the research that shows that other planets warmed along with the earth).

Believers believe that climate essentially does not change. Were it not for evil and/or stupid mankind our climate would be temperate and happy, world without end, hallelujah. Despite the obvious facts that show otherwise (do they believe ice ages never happened or were caused by woolly mammoth-mobile exhaust?)

So, to make a long story short - skeptics are the ones that believe in a changing climate and true believers are the ones that do not believe that climate would otherwise go through swings without man's influence.

Can you say 'bass-ackwards'?

Media Bias, Unemployment Still Rising

If you haven't been paying attention, this is becoming a "running joke" with the media-

First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly

The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.

The rise is the fourth in the past five weeks. Most economists hoped that claims would resume a downward trend that was evident in the fall and early winter.

Basically every piece of bad economic news that comes out, and there's still a lot of it, is almost always being tagged as "unexpected". It's like in their standard template now. If news = bad; then insert "unexpected". Who still needs "evidence" that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce? What this is evidence of is the reality of the previous unemployment reports being artificially low due to holiday delays in processing and reporting.

I've probably mentioned it a couple of times here. I've seen others mention it like Kim at Wizbang. Watch for it, you'll see. And, really, it's ridiculous and further makes the press look like nothing more than Obama-boosting cheerleaders and under-rug-sweepers. (update: see?)

I mean, just read those ridiculous lead paragraphs from the AP. Jobless claims rose "unexpectedly". Yet the rise "is the fourth in the past five weeks". That's not unexpected, that's firmly part of a trend. The editorializing word "unexpected" does nothing but somehow try to portray the economic problems as some sort of vast mystery, some conundrum caused by Bush that Obama, despite being a genius of the highest order, hasn't quite figured out, but he will! Any minute trillion now he's going to get that unemployment rate down in the high 9's!

Incidentally, the story later notes that the unemployment rate is expected to rise to 10.1%.

This constant, ubiquitous, and disingenuous use of the term "unexpected" for 1) something that keeps happening with near metronomic regularity; and 2) is completely described and predicted by conservatives as a result of the Democrats' and particularly Obama's policies is nothing but a running joke now. See how many you can spot!

Object Lesson

LONDON (AP) -- Continuing concerns about debt-plagued governments in Europe helped send stocks down Thursday ahead of interest rate meetings by the European Central Bank and the Bank of England.

Good thing that won't happen here! They don't have THE WON! "We have to SPEND our way out of this recession!!" We can deficit spend more and more TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!

No Kidding

Jonah Goldberg:

It's clear from interviews that [Obama] is fond of the notion that he is above ideological squabbles and is a clear-eyed appraiser of facts and adjudicator of political disagreements. He's described himself as a "pragmatist," even a "ruthless pragmatist," countless times.

Not to mention an "engineer" and an "accountant" by starry-eyed and thrill-legged columnists.

Yikes!

Oh, dear...that's going to leave a mark divot.

Yet even as the spending crisis intensifies, Democrats are in a major state of denial. "We've got to spend our way out of this recession," declared House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C. And for those who don't think bureaucrats have a sense of humor, the Office of Management and Budget dubbed its 2011 plan "A New Era of Responsibility."

Even the proposed freeze on nondefense discretionary spending is a sham. It raises spending, then "freezes" it at a higher level than before. And it addresses only $447 billion of a total budget next year of $3.8 trillion. It is fast-growing entitlement spending, which now accounts for 40% of all outlays, that has to be dealt with.

In short, this is the most irresponsible budget in American history. Two years of bailouts and "stimulus" have failed us miserably. The new budget tries the same tax-and-spend strategies, despite the loss of 8 million jobs and an ongoing financial crisis...

The new plan does keep the Bush tax cuts largely intact, at least for the middle classes. Those cuts helped resurrect the economy after the Clinton stock crash, the 9/11 attacks and the 2001 recession. But the budget hits entrepreneurs and small businesses very hard. And they're responsible for more than two-thirds of all new hiring. So in essence, the budget gives with one hand and takes with the other.

Over the next decade, Americans earning more than $200,000 will see a $970 billion tax hike. This is accomplished by raising the top two income tax brackets from 33% and 35% today to 36% and 39.6% in the future, while also boosting rates on capital gains and dividends to 20% from 15%. All of this, of course, violates President Obama's campaign pledge that not "one penny" of new taxes would be levied on those earning less than $250,000 a year.

Yes, taxes will fall for many Americans. But it will be targeted reductions for favored groups — not broad-based relief for all. Continuing a worrisome trend, the new budget anticipates removing half of all Americans from the tax rolls — leaving only the most productive citizens and businesses to pick up the tab.

This Is What John Stossel Does Best

This is the sort of thing that John Stossel does that no one else is doing now, not on this level. And boy we could sure use more of it:

Many window-making companies struggle because of the recession's effect on home building. But one little window company, Serious Materials, is "booming," says Fortune. "On a roll," according to Inc. magazine, which put Serious' CEO on its cover, with a story titled: "How to Build a Great Company."...

Vice President Joe Biden appeared at the opening of one of its plants. CEO Kevin Surace thanked him for his "unwavering support." "Without you and the recovery ("stimulus") act, this would not have been possible," Surace said.

Biden returned the compliment: "You are not just churning out windows; you are making some of the most energy-efficient windows in the world. I would argue the most energy-efficient windows in the world."

Gee, other window-makers say their windows are just as energy efficient, but the vice president didn't visit them...

Company board member Paul Holland had the rare of honor of introducing Obama at a "green energy" event. Obama then said: "Serious Materials just reopened ... a manufacturing plant outside of Pittsburgh. These workers will now have a new mission: producing some of the most energy-efficient windows in the world."

How many companies get endorsed by the president of the United States?

When the CEO said that opening his factory wouldn't have been possible without the Obama administration, he may have known something we didn't. Last month, Obama announced a new set of tax credits for so-called green companies. One window company was on the list: Serious Materials. This must be one very special company.

But wait, it gets even more interesting.

On my Fox Business Network show on "crony capitalism", I displayed a picture of administration officials and so-called "energy leaders" taken at the U.S. Department of Energy. Standing front and center was Cathy Zoi, who oversees $16.8 billion in stimulus funds, much of it for weatherization programs that benefit Serious.

The interesting twist is that Zoi happens to be the wife of Robin Roy, who happens to be vice president of "policy" at Serious Windows.

Of all the window companies in America, maybe it's a coincidence that the one which gets presidential and vice presidential attention and a special tax credit is one whose company executives give thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign and where the policy officer spends nights at home with the Energy Department's weatherization boss.

Or maybe not.

There may be nothing illegal about this. Zoi did disclose her marriage and said she would recuse herself from any matter that had a predictable effect on her financial interests.

But it sure looks funny to me, and it's odd that the liberal media have so much interest in this one company. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, usually not a big promoter of corporate growth, gushed about how Serious Materials is an example of how the "stimulus" is working.

I know I've seen stuff about this - maybe in the local papers - I'll have to verify that, though. If not it was splashed online.

Note that the original if you click through has links to original sources.

PANIC!!!!

I almost, almost can't believe this.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is telling owners of recalled Toyotas to stop driving the vehicles and get them fixed.

LaHood's warning came Wednesday in testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation. LaHood says his advice to owners is to "stop driving it. Take it to a Toyota dealer because they believe they have a fix for it."

Toyota's most recent recall in the United States affects 2.3 million vehicles with the potential for sticking gas pedals.

Can you even begin to imagine the disaster that would ensue if everyone followed this nutty advice?? I believe they said that this problem had cause 2, count 'em, 2 accidents. Out of literally millions of vehicles. And a high-ranking Obama lackey is telling you to immediately stop using your car and beat down the dealers' doors to get a "fix". Have you EVER heard of such a thing over a recall, some more serious than this?? Hell no.

If I were a more suspicious type I would chalk this up to the Administration trying to generate another "crisis" to not "let go to waste".

Just like Biden announcing that he wouldn't want his family to use public transportation as long as that scare swine flu is around!

-
UPDATED

He's now saying he's misrepresented himself:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood now says he misspoke when telling owners of recalled Toyotas to stop driving then.

Instead, LaHood says take them to dealerships to get them repaired.

--

UPDATE/analysis from IBD:

Is it just us, or is there something off about regulators' big public show against Toyota over a safety issue? Might that be a conflict of interest between Government Motors' owners and a foreign rival?...

His remarks followed an earlier regulatory slap against Toyota over slippery floor mats. But his latest statement revealed what the owner of Government Motors was really after: halting the public's driving of Toyotas.

Real manufacturing defects, of course, must be corrected at once. But LaHood's grandstanding may be out of proportion to the problem. Out of 1.8 million cars manufactured each year in the U.S., Toyota has 100 complaints, a handful of injuries, and in two cases deaths are alleged...

LaHood later backtracked on his statement. But as Toyota dealer Earl D. Stewart told the New York Times: "You can't un-ring the bell." Toyota's shares, which had already fallen 15% in 10 sessions, slid another 6% Wednesday.

This can happen only because there's a conflict of interest for a government that owns car companies and has a mandate to regulate both them and their foreign rivals impartially.

And that is the crux of the matter. That is why the government had no business taking over private enterprise - there is almost nothing they can then do that relates to the automobile industry that does not involve a conflict of interest.