Oh, For Crying Out Loud!

It's too much...it's just too much.

The New Math

Recall any media pushes to help out Bush when there was bad economic news?

Stuff like this?

Formula shows why it's so hard to cut jobless rate

Didn't think so.

Let me explain the "formula" that's making it so hard to cut the jobless rate:

Obama + Democrat House + Democrat Senate = Unemployment at 10%

See? That was easy.

More Proof Of Obama's Demagoguery

Look, I'm not just bashing here. I'm not just an "angry right winger" making stuff up. We are talking about hard evidence, undeniable proof that the most brainwashed Obamabot cannot deny and still claim to be a free thinker. We are talking hardcore evidence here.

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

I said evidence, here it is.

Obey-Won's State of the Unicorn:

...Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And -- and the lobbyists are trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight...

And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"...

To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, to end the outsized influence of lobbyists, to do our work openly, to give our people the government they deserve...

That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office...

Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith...

Did you catch all that?

"the outsized influence of lobbyists"

Yeah?

We're receiving E-mails from Capitol Hill staffers expressing frustration that they can't get a copy of the stimulus bill agreed to last night at a price of $789 billion. What's more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: "K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don't. So, the Hill is getting calls from the press (because it's leaking out) asking us to confirm or talk about what we know—but we can't do that because we haven't seen the bill. Anyway, peeps up here are sort of a combo of confused and like, 'Is this really happening?'"

"we've excluded lobbyists"

Except, of course, that the day after he put his name to a policy banning lobbyists from his administration he began writing himself exceptions so that he could start hiring lobbyists and his administration is now well represented with ex-lobbyists.

And now, the part that you all really came here to read:

A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union...

The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.”...

A handful of lobbyists told The Hill on Thursday morning that they received the invitations and were planning to call in.

Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.

Lobbyists say the Obama White House has held many off-the-record teleconferences over the past year.

For example, lobbyists and others were invited to a teleconference with “senior Obama administration officials” on Monday to discuss the administration’s plan to improve the lives of middle-class families.

The invitation, which is addressed to “Friends,” emphasizes in bold and italics that “this call is for background information only and not intended for press purposes.” It advises callers to tell the operator “you’re joining the ‘White House Briefing Call.’ ”

Another lobbyist said these types of teleconferences occur “all the time.”

Most transparent government EVAH!

"not intended for press purposes" "off-the-record" "all the time"

Remember, these are the people that spent the greater part of the late '00s telling you that Bush should be impeached for "lying to us".

Thanks to The Hill for breaking this, despite Obama's pleas to keep these lobbyist snugglefests "off-the-record" and "not for press purposes" and Rick at Wizbang for tipping me to it.

The SuperGenius' Genius Friends

I think the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans was Hurricane Katrina.

All I'm going to say about this, whether you choose to look at the words or the context or whatever is: What if a Republican or conservative had said this, in any context?

He Thinks We're Dumb As Mud

Really, what other conclusion can you draw from statements like this:

Trimming budget deficits is as important as creating jobs to sustain the economic recovery, President Barack Obama said Saturday.

This is the same guy that told us that it was OK to spend a trillion dollars to "make jobs" last spring and we HAD TO DO IT RIGHT NOW NOW NOW! And, of course, that failed miserably as unemployment soared a full 2 points higher than he told us it would with his brilliant porkulating. Now, suddenly, deficits matter.

He thinks we're as dumb as mud.

Imaginary Hero

I haven't been able to let this drop. I keep saying the same bullspit all over the place. That O'Keefe is/was a "hero" to Republicans/conservatives/etc.

Yeah?

Do yourself a favor - go to a search engine and type in "o'keefe hero". You'll get a lot of hits. Every hit I found in a decent search is a liberal website, left wing website, or liberal media outlet making the claim, without backing or evidence or links to prove it, that O'Keefe is/was a hero.

I cannot find conservative sites saying any such thing. I haven't heard a conservative or Republican saying any such thing. I guess you may find some vague, anonymous statements by wahoos on the internet, but is that the standard we wish to use in 'serious' journalism? In other words, it is completely a liberal fantasy. But, thanks to the bulletproof liberal media echo chamber, they are all repeating and repeating and echoing and echoing each other, saying it over and over...and they have nothing to base it upon.

Conservatives praised his work exposing the obviously illegal actions of ACORN.

Some Republicans in the House even tried to get a resolution passed honoring their diligent journalism. Not praising the individuals. Not calling them heroes. Essentially doing nothing more than praising the work of any journalist from CNN or ABC or the New York Times. Does anyone call a reporter at the Post a hero when they write a good story? No. Of course not. Insert double standard here. Of course liberals do call Woodward and Bernstein heroes, despite the fact that all they did was print info that was leaked to them. But that's neither here nor there.

Put simply, every story you read that calls him a 'hero' should be considered questionable, because that author has done no research into the matter and is simply repeating what they read somewhere else, not caring if it is true or not.

Your Random Saturday

Mona Charen with some good, old-fashioned hypocrisy:

If a Republican candidate in such a high-profile contest put out campaign literature that misspelled the name of her state, it would be worth, let's see, mentions on every Sunday gabfest and two, maybe three, jokes on the late-night shows...

When Coakley was challenged in an October debate about her lack of foreign policy credentials, she parried: "I have a sister who lives overseas, and she's been in England and now lives in the Middle East." Hmm. Just a few months ago, Sarah Palin said something similar, and the smart set has not finished laughing yet. Palin didn't say "I can see Russia from my house!" But the Tina Fey parody has replaced the less amusing truth. "Saturday Night Live" can be brilliant. But if Palin's comment was worthy of such mockery, wasn't Coakley's equally so? Just asking...

A lurid flier aimed at female voters claims that "1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away." Brown is, as it happens, pro-choice (though he's in favor of more restrictions than Coakley is). This vile lie was based on Brown's support for a conscience exemption (which also was supported by Ted Kennedy) for emergency room personnel who do not wish to prescribe the abortifacient "morning-after pill." That's a world away from closing hospital doors on rape victims.

Coakley will get a pass on all this from the press. It's good to be a Democrat.

Michael Fumento points out the epidemic that wasn't (lots of links in the original):

Like all infectious disease epidemics, swine flu followed a bell curve. It peaked in mid-October, before anybody was vaccinated.

Only 161 new infections were reported to CDC-monitored labs last week, compared to 11,470 at the epidemic's mid-October peak. Only one state (Alabama) still reports "widespread activity." Deaths and hospitalizations were 14 and 374, respectively, compared to 189 and 4,970 a week at the peak. To put that in perspective, the CDC estimates that an average of 257 Americans normally die of seasonal flu every day during the season, or about 36,000 a year...

Why were there so few flu deaths? First, swine flu is vastly milder than the seasonal variety. According to the latest CDC estimate, while seasonal flu kills between one in 480 to one in 1,700 Americans infected, swine flu has killed only one person for every 5,000 infections...

Second, swine flu is more contagious than the seasonal flu strains, essentially muscling them aside. And people infected with swine flu appear to be immune to seasonal flu, just as the mild cowpox virus inoculated people against the fearsome smallpox virus (as the famed vaccine inventor Edward Jenner noted). Of those 161 new flu cases reported to the CDC last week, only four clearly weren't swine flu.

Fumento's not the only one pointing out what a mess this was.

That's Gonna Leave A Mark! Go, Gregg!

Su-weeeeeeet. NH today can boast of having the best Senator for America for today, first Sen. Gregg blows the lid off of Obama's plans to politicize, disrupt, and possible corrupt the 2010 census by operating it out of the White House instead of the Department it belongs in, run by his political cronies instead of the actual Census Bureau...now he takes on a pair of pathetic liberal media hacks at MSNBC and blows them out of the water, leaving them shamefaced.



Check out the complete transcript at newsbusters...freakin' GOLD people, GOLD! I think a look back through my posts will see that I've urged the GOP to stand up for themselves and not stand for lies - just like this.

JUDD GREGG: ...If you want to do something to energize this economy, I think you put in place some plans which control the rate of government, so the people can have confidence that we as a nation are not going to go into some form of fiscal bankruptcy in five to seven years. And that will cause people to be willing to invest, to be willing to take risks, and to be willing to create jobs. Jobs are not created by the government. You know, long-term good jobs are created by a vibrant economy. And you don’t get a vibrant economy when the government and the size of the government and the debt of the government is overwhelming the capacity of the economy to function well.

MELISSA FRANCIS: That’s good in theory, Senator. How would you practically-

GREGG: It’s not theory. It’s not theory.

FRANCIS: How would you – well, tell me-

GREGG: Don’t tell me that it’s good in theory.

FRANCIS: Well, tell me how to put it to work. Tell me – tell me very practically-

GREGG: No, you don’t tell me it’s good in theory. What are you – how do you get off saying something like that? Good in theory?

FRANCIS: Because it is good in theory. It is, it’s fantastic.

GREGG: Oh, of course...

BREWER: So my partner, Melissa, Senator Gregg, is really asking for specifics. If you don’t believe that we should have a $1.3 trillion budget, which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you? Do you – and do you side then, with those who say – I mean, you look back at the Great Depression, economists say we landed back into real problems in 1937 when people got onto cutting a deficit and a lot of government spending was pulled back before it should have been.

GREGG: Well, first off nobody’s saying no money for schools. What an absurd statement to make.

BREWER: Well, I’m asking-

GREGG: And what a dishonest statement to make.

BREWER: What we both are-

GREGG: On its face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement...

FRANCIS: Just tell us, what do you want to cut?

GREGG: Oh I have no problem telling you, I would freeze discretionary spending, a real freeze, not a – not a freeze plus inflation. I would eliminate the T.A.R.P. money, which would get us close to $400 billion. I would end the stimulus spending effective in June of this year, if not sooner, so that we can recover all the money that’s going to be spent outside the window of this recession. And we shouldn’t be spending it and adding it to the debt. I would take a major effort to reform our entitlement programs, in fact yesterday, or the day before yesterday, we had a vote to try to do that under a bill which I proposed with Senator Conrad. I’ve made very specific proposals and I’m willing to stand by them. The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is that economic prosperity is created by growing the government dramatically. And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they’re going to – that if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education.

BREWER: That’s not what I said... [Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?]

GREGG: I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter, probably in a month.

BREWER: It wasn’t a statement, it was a question.

GREGG: And there are a lot of irresponsible statements made by reporters and that was the most irresponsible I’ve heard.

FRANCIS: Senator, with respect, that’s not what she said, she was asking you what you would like to cut specifically. [Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?]

GREGG: No, that’s what she said.

FRANCIS: And I think you answered the question.

BREWER: We appreciate your time-

GREGG: That’s exactly what she said, go back and read your transcript.

BREWER: We appreciate your time today-

GREGG: You can’t be duplicitous about this. You can’t make a representation and then claim you didn’t make it. You know, it just shouldn’t work that way. You’ve got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.

FRANCIS: She asked you what you would like to cut. She asked you if you’d like to cut schools. You said no. It was a question and answer. [Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?]

GREGG: No, you’re suggesting we should have a zero – zero in education. Well, of course, nobody’s suggesting that. Nobody’s even implying that. But in your introduction to me, you said that, that education funding would be cut.

BREWER: No, I didn’t. [Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?]

GREGG: Well, education funding isn’t going to be cut. Yes you did...

Me-Me-Me-Meeeee!

No, he's not warming up his vocal cords, Obama's just giving another speech.

Jonah Goldberg:

Since taking office, Obama has continued to see the presidency as the perfect perch from which to campaign for a job he already has. The solution to every problem the White House runs into is "more Obama." Much of this stems from Obama's own arrogance. When people disagree with his health-care proposals, it is because they don't really understand them or because they are misdirecting their anger at him. When Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., warned the president that the 2010 midterms were shaping up to be a replay of the 1994 Republican tsunami, Obama reportedly told him that there was one important difference between then and now: "Me."

In his State of the Union, the president waxed eloquent about the baleful climate of what is commonly called "permanent campaign" mind-set in Washington. This was an interesting line of attack from a man who has never disbanded his campaign operation "Organizing for America" and who responded to the Scott Brown election by bringing his campaign manager into the White House.

Jay Tea:

Reagan started it with a man who, upon seeing an airliner crash into a freezing river, dove in and pulled a passenger to safety. Other notable guests have included entrepeneurs, soldiers, foreign dignataries, and sports stars.

Last night was no exception. Obama's special guests were Officers Kimberly Munley and Mark Todd, the two heroic cops who stopped the Fort Hood shooter

We know this because that's who was announced to be the guests, and viewers might have caught glimpses of police uniforms during the cutaways to the first lady for her reactions.

Because President Obama didn't bother to give them a "shout out" during the speech.

Ben Shapiro:

This, then, is a list of his favorite linguistic flourishes -- and just what he means when he uses them...

"This isn't about me": This is completely about me.

Herb London:

In response to Scott Brown’s remarkable Senate victory in Massachusetts, President Obama said, “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Here is the blame George W. Bush gambit yet again, even though Scott Brown is a Republican who ran against Obama’s policies in a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic.

To make matters even more risible, the president went on to say, “If there’s one thing that I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crisis that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of the sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values.”

Well, the question remains, what precisely did he get done. He did get a stimulus bill through the Congress that has done nothing to stimulate national employment, even though that was the promise. For a man busy with getting stuff done – a curious rhetorical position – he had the time to deliver 411 speeches, 52 on health care alone, which by presidential standards is unprecedented...

President Obama seems to believe that the personality cult he created during the campaign will carry over to his government. He is so busy doing good stuff that he lost focus. Does that include vacationing in Hawaii, dates with Michele in New York, frequent appearances on the golf course, and basketball games in the White House gym?

Mark Steyn:

"That I do think is a mistake of mine," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it."

But you schlubs aren't that smart. You didn't get it. And Barack Obama is determined to see that you do. So the president has decided that he needs to start "speaking directly to the American people".

Wait, wait! Come back! Don't all stampede for the hills! He gave only 158 interviews and 411 speeches in his first year (according to CBS News' Mark Knoller). That's more than any previous president — and maybe more than all of them put together...

But what will the president be saying in all these extra interviews? In that interview about how he hadn't given enough interviews, he also explained to Stephanopoulos what that wacky Massachusetts election was all about:

"The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," said Obama. "People are angry and they're frustrated, not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years but what's happened over the last eight years."

Got it. People are so angry and frustrated at George W. Bush that they're voting for Republicans. In Massachusetts. Boy, I can't wait for that 159th interview...

At one point late in the 2008 campaign, when someone suggested that if Gov. Palin was "unqualified" then surely he was too, Obama pointed as evidence to the contrary his ability to run such an effective campaign. In other words, running for president was his main qualification for being president.

David Limbaugh I:

Reading excerpts of President Barack Obama's interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos underscores how tone-deaf and self-absorbed Obama is -- and that his tone-deafness is a function of his self-absorption and rigid ideology.

Obama said: "One thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values. And that I do think is a mistake of mine. I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or are we making a good, rational decision here ... people will get it."

Let's unpack that mouthful. It's all about him; in almost every line, he is bragging or excusing himself. No wonder he can't see any farther than his navel.

Note in the opening sentence his umpteenth gratuitous reference to "crises" he inherited; he doesn't use the word "inherited" there, but his meaning is clear.

In the next sentence, he pretends to criticize himself (for not speaking directly to the American people) as a backdrop for patting himself on the back for "just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises." Even if he hadn't immediately turned the phony self-deprecation into a boast, we'd know he wasn't sincere because the substance of his statement is flat-out false...

Besides, the problem is not the "crises" Obama inherited. It's the ones he's creating. He has lived in such a socialist policy shell all his life that he doesn't have a clue that he's on a different planet than most of us. If he were just slightly less narcissistic, he might be able to figure this out.

David Limbaugh II:

The more painful exposure we have to Barack Obama -- and we're talking hyper-exposure at this point -- the more we realize how narcissistic he is. Indeed, we are treated to this overexposure precisely because of his narcissistic impulses. He can't keep himself out of the spotlight.

So it was that on the heels of his crushing personal defeat in the Massachusetts senatorial election last week, Obama's principal reaction was, "This isn't about me."

When someone says that one time or a few times, you might believe him. But when he says it repeatedly (see below), you have to conclude he is protesting too much and means just the opposite...

If it weren't all about Obama, why would he say, "We (meaning I) are the ones we've been waiting for"? Why would he cultivate a messianic image, replete with echo-enhanced microphones, a grandiose Greek temple backdrop at Invesco Field, and that far-off and high-above look he has mastered for his ethereal orations?

Obama's effort to present himself as otherworldly, of which the rhetorical device "it's not about me" is but a part, is not something he just contrived in the past year. It's part of a deliberate pattern he established long ago and has continued with consistency, as my research has confirmed in spades.

Consider this sampling:

--On Feb. 15, 1990, after becoming "the first black president of the influential Harvard Law Review," Obama said, "I realized my election was not about me, but it was about us, about what we could do and what we could accomplish."

--On Nov. 2, 2004, when Obama visited the campus of the University of Illinois during his campaign for U.S. senator, he said: "Ultimately, this election is not about me. ... It's about the willingness of our citizens to get engaged and get involved."

--On Dec. 11, 2006, in a speech in New Hampshire, Obama said, "It's not about me." But, according to an NPR reporter, "it really is all about him."

--On Dec. 10, 2007, Obama said, "This campaign is not about me; it is about the hundreds of volunteers ... in Rhode Island ... and the millions of people across the country who want change we can believe in."

--On Dec. 14, 2007, when asked about a New Year's resolution, Obama said he needed to keep reminding himself, "This is not about me."

--On Aug. 28, 2008, Obama said in his acceptance speech, "This election has never been about me; it's about you."

--On July 20, 2009, Obama said (exactly as he repeated following the Massachusetts election): "This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses and breaking America's economy."

Whom do you think it's about?

Teleprompters at a small gathering of advisors??? Apparently.

But, c'mon. He wouldn't bring teleprompters to address a class of 6th graders. Would he? Yes, he would.

Something's Got To Give

You can only pile up so many things before something snaps under the pressure.

Unemployment is still bad. 10% of those still working and something like 17% if you count those that have given up looking. (That's nearly one out of five!)

There's still money everywhere to be had cheap - government money via banks, that is. But nobody wants it. The uncertainty is so thick that you could cut it with a knife so investors aren't investing. There was recently a story in the paper about how the Wall Street bonuses aren't "trickling down" this winter. This was hilarious on several levels. The first is that the paper has to acknowledge that, ordinarily, spending by the 'haves' "trickles down" to the 'have lesses' - which they normally oppose vehemently if anyone dares to mention it. The second is that any confusion as to why this would happen is a simple one-word answer - Obama. The 'haves' are waiting to be slapped with punitive taxes to grab their bonus back, they're waiting to have their taxes go up when the so-called "Bush tax cuts" expire, they're waiting for their health insurance to get more expensive, etc. So they're not buying a new Lexus or even laptop with their bonus this year, they're putting it in the bank. They're not investing it, which "trickles down".

The initial read of the 4Q09 GDP came in quite good, 5.7%. That will almost certainly be revised downward, maybe as far as the 3 range. The initial reads on 3Q09 certainly got sliced. Still, my initial reaction is that it is probably kinda-sorta OK news. That's because the government porkulus isn't behind a lot of the "growth" as it was in 3Q09. They're doing such a lousy job spending their pork that I don't think much was happening in 4Q. Instead, I think the analyses (and I'll post some when they start coming out, I'm sure) are going to show that a lot of that "growth" is actually nothing more than spending prompted by government handouts - for cars and houses. And we know that that spending did not last, that it cratered after the government's handouts dried up. So some, or even a lot, of that 4Q09 "growth" isn't sustainable and given the weak Christmas sales I think if we broke 4Q down by months it would already be declining from it's "clunky" peak. Nevertheless, when you peel away those layers I think there's probably still a bit of growth there. That's good.

Inflationary pressure, we're told, remains contained. Considering the Fed just refused to raise rates to head off inflation and doesn't envision raising them anytime soon, that's good news, I guess, in a twisted sort of way. However, seems to me that the fact that you could have 5.7% growth without inflation can really only mean that that 5.7% is imaginary - government spending. That wouldn't trigger inflation the way good old consumer consuming would. Think about it - if everybody was flush with cash and started buying cars, what would happen? Car prices would go up. That would trickle all down the line to parts and the workers that make those parts, etc. BUT, what if the surge in car sales was only due to government handouts? Would sellers jack up prices? No. Of course not. They knew that it was a one-shot deal and a chance to clear some inventory. They knew sales would crater after Obama's handout dried up. Raising prices knowing that you're already going to have troubling selling next month makes zippo sense. So, no inflation. Again, the lack of inflation coupled with "growth" signals devalues a lot of the meaning anyone might try to extract from that "growth".

Still, pulling out the pessimism, I think we're starting to see some turnaround (albeit at least 6 months behind schedule). And the Fed refuses to raise rates. And some of the Democrats are turning on their leftwing masters in order to get re-elected in November, which means the uncertainty may start to part. And there is a sliver of hope that at least one house of Congress could go Republican in November - at the very least the Democrats won't even be close to 60 votes. Obama publicly punching Justice Kennedy in the face and lying about him in the State of the Union isn't going to buy him or his socialist dreams many favors. A divided government is good news to investors. Gridlock is music to their ears. We might actually start a mild recovery that just might start to add some jobs this year.

Something's gotta give. And given the Fed's statement that they're not planning on raising rates seems to point to one unpleasant thing to me...inflation. Couple that with people not making anything on their savings and stagnant retirement plans and that's not good news. Maybe the 4Q10 numbers will push them in the right direction - but you have to figure they had advance notice of that number before their meeting, so maybe not. Bernanke was mostly steady through the past two years thanks to his heavy study of the Great Depression and how to avoid another one. Now that he's been re-upped, maybe he should take a little time to study up on the early '80s and how the Fed can keep a recovery from turning into an inflationary nightmare. When the economy starts to recover from a bad patch (worse than this one), the Fed moved to sop up the excess money that had flooded the market to keep inflation from swamping the recovery. And it was painful. And Volcker was hated. But they did it. 25 years of prosperity followed.

If you want a bit more on Bernanke - see below:

"I forgot he was black!"

MSNBC's Chris Matthews says President Barack Obama has done so much to heal racial divisions that he "forgot he was black" while watching his State of the Union address.

Unlike his usual state when he's constantly aware of Obama's blackness? Really helpin' the cause there, pal. He's so "healed racial divisions" that white talk show hosts can't stop thinking about his skin color? How does that make sense even to an idiot?

Economic News Still Disappointing

Following yesterday's 7.6% drop in new home sales (smashing the "expected" 3% gain to pieces), more gloomy news today that the Senate raising the debt limit EVER HIGHER or Obama pledging to spend BILLIONS on high-speed rail boondoggles that the experts told him wouldn't succeed can't obscure.

Housing:

In the second half of 2009, house prices staged a surprising recovery, leading many to conclude that the housing bust was done.

Keep dreaming, says Dan Alpert of Westwood Capital.

The rise in the second half of 2009 was mainly the result of pent-up demand combined with a tax-break, subsidized mortgage rates, and other incentives. The housing market is still awash in excess inventory, and Alpert says this will eventually drive prices down to 8%-10% below the lows of early last year.

The good news?

House prices should bottom this year and then begin to recover. Also, for the hardest hit areas, such as those in California or the sand states, the bust is probably over. Prices have fallen so far in those areas that Alpert thinks they're bottoming now.

And in market news, initial jobless claims continued to surge ahead, higher than expected (translation - jobs are still being lost, not "saved or created") and the market tumbled pretty good today, despite the re-upping (and continuity) of Bernanke being retained as Fed head.

Times Notes Obama's Highly Weakened Position

What a difference a year makes...talk about 'hero to zero':

President Obama spoke the first 676 words of his State of the Union Address Wednesday night before the first hand clap. His tone was so somber, and the room's mood so grave, that no one moved when Obama said, "We must answer history's call." There were no ovations when he called for "Democrats and Republicans to work through our differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our problems." He got no love for saying, "the worst of the storm has passed."

By the time he announced that, "We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college," Obama was forced to go off script. "I thought I'd get some applause on that one," he said, looking over to the Republicans, who were sitting on their hands. There was some giggling, and some of them relented, offering the Congressional version of a golf clap.

So it went all night for the President, who a year ago came before the same body to announce, "Now is the time to act boldly and wisely." That bold wisdom has, in the course of a year, been transformed into a much more qualified vision of something short of significant legislative failure...

When Obama spoke about creating jobs for small business, Boehner spread his hands, and cocked his head, as if to say, "So now you're getting it." When Obama congratulated himself for not raising income taxes by "a single dime," Boehner looked incredulous - as if to say, "Really, he wants credit for that?" When Obama asked, "if anyone from either party has a better approach" to health care reform, Boehner shot out of his seat and raised his hand. He was not called on...

He was fiercely critical of the Supreme Court's recent ruling to allow corporate and union contributions to political campaigns, earning himself a disapproving head shake from Justice Samuel Alito, who sat robed in the second row. Obama also spoke at length about the deficit, saying he would freeze government spending, but not until next year...

MoveOn.org Starting Campaign For Amendment Overturning Freedom Of Speech

As hard it is seems to believe, even for these nutjobs, MorOn.org is beginning a fundraising campaign (get out your checkbook, Mr. Soros) to start campaigning for a constitutional amendment to overturn the first amendment's Freedom of Speech. As ludicrous as this sounds, that does appear to be what they are openly advocating:

We'll demand a constitutional amendment to directly reverse the Supreme Court decision, and we'll fight for essential changes like the Fair Elections Now Act, to give small-donor-backed populist candidates a chance against the corporate big guns.

It'll be a huge fight and we need to know if we'll have the resources to proceed. It'll take $200,000 right away to start strong, and that'll take 6 donations from Albany. Are you in? Please help with a contribution of $5 today.

What do you say, Albany? Want to send the MorOns five bucks to overturn the first amendment?

Make no mistake, any amendment they envision in their fevered dreams will have to say something along the lines of 'This disfavored group of citizens may not express political speech.' Which, naturally, will negate part of the first amendment which reads, in part: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." It's really just that simple.

Can Obama Bail Out The States?

He bailed out banks. He bailed out car makers unions. He bailed out lenders.

The next questions was if he would or could bail out failing, floundering, and financially broke states, in particular California.

Yes, he can!

The White House is doling out $8 billion in grants for high-speed rail projects, an initiative touted as a jobs creator.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden announced the grants at a town hall-style meeting in Tampa, Fla., Thursday — a follow-up appearance to the president's State of the Union address. The administration says the rail projects will save or create tens of thousands of jobs.

Tell me, how is a brand new initiative going to "save or create" thousands of jobs? If it's brand new, then there can be no jobs to "save". The answer, of course, is that this will not "create" significant or long-term jobs and, because they want to lie about their handout, they will later claim that it "saved" jobs, even though we know that's a lie because this is something that does not currently employ anyone.

Thirteen rail corridors in 31 states will receive funds. Projects in California, Florida and Illinois are among the big winners...

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are expected to pitch the program as a boost to the economy at a town hall meeting Thursday in Tampa, Fla. A half-dozen Cabinet members and other senior administration officials were scheduled to fan out across the country for rail events Thursday and Friday...

Allow me to quote from Mr. Messiah's State of the Unicorn address from last night: "But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign..." Yup, that jibes with dispatching officials to ride around in trains touting the administration.

By spreading the $8 billion among so many states, Obama is ignoring the advice of transportation experts and high-speed rail advocates who said the best way to build continuing political support for the program would be to concentrate on two or three grants large enough to get a high-speed line up and running. Once that happens, they reasoned, other parts of the country would lobby for more money to build their own lines.

Why listen to experts who want to actually develop a high-speed rail net in America? There's important stuff to do like handing out money to states with vulnerable Democrats! They don't actually think he cares about a functional high-speed rail net, do they? Rubes.

Rep. John Mica of Florida, the senior Republican on the House transportation committee, complained that the Midwest lines awarded grants will achieve top speeds of only 110 mph and were "selected more for political reasons than for high-speed service."

Give this man the 'obvious statement of the day' award.

Anybody wanna bet how much of this money is actually used to build high-speed rail? Here you go, Barbara Boxer, a nice fat handout to tout while you try to keep your seat! Sure, you can use that money to pay off teachers' unions instead, just make them spend a couple of days talking about how great the imaginary high-speed rail system will be in classes and it's all good.

Yeah, That Pretty Well Sums It Up

Like Night And Day

Did you watch the morning news today?

Did you see the market segment anchors talking about how the markets were eagerly awaiting the home sales report today, which was expected to show a nice increase after the past months of declines (when increases were also predicted, if I recall correctly)?

No doubt that would have dovetailed nicely with their State of the Unicorn stories, something that could be loaded up into the teleprompter as an example of what a mahvoolous job Obey-Won and his Debt-i Knights in Congress are doing at turning the economy around.

Did you see that?

Yeah.

(briefing.com) New home sales for December didn't do anything to improve the mood of participants with its midmorning release. According to the report, annualized new home sales made a 7.6% monthly decline, which contrasted negatively with the consensus call for a 3.0% month-over-month increase.

10.6% worse than expected.

You're doing a heck of a job, Barry.

Kerry Urges Anger From People Killed By Global Warming

No, you didn't read that incorrectly. The US Senator that's not in touch with reality is telling people to get angry about global warming, particularly those that being killed by global warming.

Apparently he hasn't gotten the memo from his butler that the whole global warming myth is dissolving claim by claim around him. It seems that not only is the science not settled, but the science they were claiming was settled isn't even turning out to be science, but magazine interviews, hyperbole, and cherrypicked data (that data that wasn't deleted to hide things, that is). Maybe one of the maids accidentally threw it away along with the note that Massachusetts residents are not the strangers to tea parties that he imagines them to be.

Anyway, I think you can add him to the list of those that Scott Brown's election unhinged (more):

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) urged climate bill supporters today to strike a populist note in lobbying for a sweeping new environmental law that will reduce traditional air pollutants while also tackling global warming.

"I want you to go out there and start knocking on doors and telling people this has to happen," Kerry said during a conference hosted by labor, farming, military veteran and environmental groups. "You know if the Tea Party folks can go out there and get angry because they think their taxes are too high, for God's sake, a lot of citizens ought to get angry about the fact that they're being killed and our planet is being injured by what's happening on a daily basis by the way we provide our power and our fuel and the old practices we have. That's something worth getting angry about."...

The president will still insist on a bill that gets the United States to a 17 percent cut from 2005 levels by 2020, even though the president remains open to compromise. "At the end of the day, any and all ideas are on the table because the clock is ticking," an Obama official told the newspaper.

It certainly is...since it is very likely that the world has already entered its latest swing towards 'cold', a swing that seems to happen with steady regularity every 30 years. In the lat '70s the fear-mongers were selling another ice age, halfway through they started in on global warming...well, we're 30 years on and starting on global cooling again. It's the gift that keeps on giving it seems.

You have to give Kerry some credit for coming out for the zombie vote, though.

Newt Explains Citizens United v. FEC

Figured I'd post this since you likely won't see anything in your paper or on TV defending the ruling that restores free speech that had been curtailed. Newt explains it, as usual, simply and coherently:

“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

These are the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in a historic Supreme Court decision that began with a man, a movie, and a message that bothered the bureaucratic Washington machine...

By declaring that government has no business suppressing the political speech of groups like Citizens United, the Supreme Court has begun to make it easier for middle class candidates to take on the rich and the powerful...

The Founders understood the importance of the unfettered right of citizens to complain about their government. They recognized the danger of politicians controlling or censoring the debate about themselves. That’s why they wrote in the First Amendment to the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

These words and this right have been stunningly perverted by laws like McCain-Feingold, which was explicitly a case of Congress making a law abridging our freedom of speech -- of incumbent politicians attempting to censor the people’s discussion of whether they should remain in office...

The near-hysterical reaction of proponents of bureaucratic campaign finance laws such as big money fund raiser and incumbent Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) that the decision is “un-American” and “a threat to our democracy” are exactly wrong.

Laws like McCain-Feingold give incumbent politicians in Washington tremendous advantages over middle-class citizen challengers. Incumbents have literally millions of dollars worth of taxpayer-funded staff, traveling and mailing privileges.

And thanks to McCain-Feingold imposed limits on what individuals can contribute to candidates, rich politicians who can spend unlimited amounts of their own money and don’t have to worry about raising money in small amounts have a tremendous advantage.

Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) used his personal fortune from Goldman Sachs to first buy a Senate seat and then the governorship. And New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg would have been defeated by a virtual unknown last November if he hadn’t been able to spend his millions.

Citizens United v. FEC doesn’t threaten our democracy. It strengthens it by making it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents.

But as significant as it was, the Court’s decision wasn’t real campaign finance reform.

Real reform under our Constitution will only come when Americans and associations of Americans are allowed to give unlimited amounts of after-tax money to the candidates and campaigns of their choice.

Donors should be given this freedom and required to post on the Internet every night what they’re spending and how they’re spending. That way, voters would know who is funding whom, and how much. Armed with that knowledge, Americans can be trusted to make an informed, truly democratic choice.

Predictably, just the prospect of voters making such a free and informed choice has the Washington establishment machine up in arms.

In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, President Obama used his weekly radio address last week to pledge to work with Congress to reverse the decision and declared: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections”.

This, from the president who negotiated back-room deals with special interests in order to force Democratic health care reform on the American people.

This, from a president whose massive expansion of government into the private sector has set off a stampede of lobbyists to Washington to claim their piece of the taxpayers’ pie.

In case the point is lost on anyone re: non-rich people running - Newt is saying that, since they still can't just donate cash to a candidate that they support, this ruling will allow interests to run ads supporting a candidate they like - before they were not able to do that. So wealthy candidates (and incumbents with taxpayer funded staff) were able to run all the ads they could afford in support of themselves. Against that place a really good candidate who doesn't happen to be a millionaire, a candidate with a solid background and good ideas, and now interests will be able to run ads on their behalf (because, again, they can't just give them money to run ads on their own) whereas before they were completely prohibited from supporting the candidate to the fullest (by running ads or giving money the way that an independently wealthy candidate could).

At least now, for example, a union will be able to run ads supporting a non-wealthy, liberal candidate that promises to embrace Obama's policies of cutting them special deals on health care, taking over private industries and handing them over to unions, and dispatching them to intimidate conservative protesters. Before they weren't allowed to do that. All they could do was pressure their members to donate small sums to the candidate.

Here's Your Nickel

The big news out of the latest FOMC policy statement is that Bernanke still won't raise interest rates. And the news is generally 'positive'. What a surprise they would release 'upbeat' news a day before he needs Democrats, who need positive economic news, to reconfirm him.

Anyway, politics aside, what you need to know is that you still won't be earning any interest on your savings "for an extended period of time". You probably recently got your interest statement for 2009 for your taxes and saw that you earned barely any interest in 2009. Well, welcome to Obama's America where your money is needed elsewhere and banks can't be going around paying you to use your money.

Great.

What the hell, let's keep talking politics. This also means that they do not foresee inflation as an issue.

Which means that they don't actually anticipate a strong recovery. Loads of excess cash plus recovery = massive inflation (if money is cheap and people are spending then sellers raise prices which is what inflation is). Well, money is cheap but they don't see inflation. Which means, if you read between the lines, they don't see a strong recovery "for an extended period of time".

Great.

Handy Reference For Those Brave Enough To Watch SOTU

If you skip dinner and 'gird your loins' adequately you might be able to stomach the State of the Unicorn* tonight.

Ben Shapiro, as I have noted before, is at his best when snarking. Most columnists are not. I don't think Ann Coulters is, for example. I think she does better when she's talking about her wheelhouse, the law, and simply imbuing her matter with snark. Ben's at his best when the point is the snark. Here he provides a handy reference guide you'll need to translate the State of the Unicorn:

"False choice": A very real choice Obama wants to pretend doesn't exist...

"Deficit reduction": Deficit increases...

"Let me be clear": Let me lie to you.

"Make no mistake": See "let me be clear."

"Unprecedented": When he's doing something beneficial for the American people, Obama claims he is the first to ever think of it; when he's doing something harmful, he seems to always find a precedent for it in FDR or LBJ.

"This isn't about me": This is completely about me...

"Reaching out to the other side of the aisle": Totally rejecting all ideas from anyone outside the Obama-approved bubble...

"Failed policies of the past": Don't blame me! Blame Bush!

"Teachable moment": I screwed something up, now I'll brag about it.

"Tax cut": Redistribution of money from those who pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to those who pay none.

"Transparency": Deliberate opaqueness, hiding crucial facts from the American public...

"Stimulus": Payoffs to friends...

"Green jobs": Imaginary jobs...

"Recovery": Continued economic stagnation...

"Progress": Redistribution.

"Cynics": Anyone who doesn't believe in the Obama radical agenda.

* I hope I'm not being too obscure. The speech will, of course, be all about Obama, not the nation. All of his speeches and darned near every word that flows from his Teleprompter are about, of course, him. And you may recall that swathes of the rightweb during the election mocked his campaign for touting magical cures for everything, unicorns doing your dishes, etc. The prime unicorn, of course, is Obama himself. Therefore, the speech will be the State of the Unicorn, Obama.

So Pathetic

When was the last time you read a headline along the lines of: 3 facing charges had liberal ties

You haven't. It doesn't happen. It never happens. Because it's asinine.

Doesn't stop this lead headline:

4 men accused of phone plot had conservative ties

Asinine. Absolutely asinine and pants-on-the-ground-obviously biased.

"It's My Fault. I'm Not Going To Stop Doing It."

That appears to be the message we'll be getting in the State of the Unicorns address from fantasy land president, Obama. At least according to the prime headline's subheadline in today's Times Union, which reads: In tonight's speech, Obama is expected to accept responsibility for woes but not change his course

Translation: 'Things are bad. The things I have tried have not worked. The things I have tried have made them worse. I'm not going to try different things, I'm going to keep doing the same types of things. Commence praying.'

What The Heck Was This All About?

4 charged in phone scheme at La. senator's office

A hero of conservatives who bruised the liberal group ACORN by posing as a pimp on hidden camera is now accused of orchestrating an attempt to tamper with phone lines at Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu's office inside a federal building.

It's not clear what James O'Keefe, 25, and three other suspects were trying to accomplish Monday at the New Orleans office of Landrieu, who has been criticized for securing more Medicaid benefits for her state in exchange for her support on health care legislation.

It sounded like a Watergate-style operation, but federal officials have not yet said why the men wanted to interfere with Landrieu's phones, whether they were successful, or even if the goal was political espionage. All four have been involved in conservative politics in the past.

A staff member in the office told the FBI that two of the suspects, including the son of an acting U.S. Attorney, wore white hard harts, tool belts and flourescent vests and said they needed to fix a problem with the phone system.

According to an FBI affidavit, O'Keefe was already sitting in the waiting area and recorded the men on his cell phone when they walked in.

A federal law enforcement official said one of the suspects was picked up in a car a couple of blocks away with a listening device that could pick up transmissions. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was not part of the FBI affidavit...

Using a hidden camera, O'Keefe, posing as a pimp and accompanied by a young woman posing as a prostitute, shot videos in ACORN offices where staffers appeared to offer illegal tax advice and to support the misuse of public funds and illegal trafficking in children...

"Hero"? That's probably going a little far. Predictable how quickly they said that, though, to try to denigrate conservatives.

This story alone is almost more coverage than the ACORN scandal ("appeared to offer"???) got in the mainstream press. Did they give him the same benefit of the doubt in this article, just after it happened? Yeah, right. "Watergate-style"? Gimme a break. Could you be more obvious?

Insert Head 'A' Into Rear End 'B'

More lunacy from the left wing's failing answer to FoxNews:

On Thursday, the cast of MSNBC’s Morning Joe was "shocked" and "horrified" about Rush Limbaugh’s lack of "compassion" on Wednesday for suggesting Obama would exploit the disaster in Haiti to shore up his black base. White House reporter Chuck Todd, the mildest critic, complained: "You would assume he’d have a little more compassion about all of this...You know what? Not everything is about politics. You know? Everything is about politics!" This came just hours after MSNBC’s own Keith Olbermann exploited the earthquake as an occasion to sell ObamaCare.

I Thought FoxNews Was The Untrustworthy One

Isn't the dinosaur press (and the Democrat party) always complaining that FoxNews isn't a "real" news organization? Seems to me they say this because their television station has opinion programs with various entities that range from decidedly conservative (Sean Hannity) to liberal (Geraldo Rivera) to exploitative (Greta Van Susteren).

Meanwhile, the donkey in the room, MSNBC, the real non-news source in American broadcasting, has hosts like Ed Schultz that spout stuff like this:

I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right, I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.

Right.

Of course dinosaurs like newspaper editors might notice that it is a CORPORATION that owns MSNBC and it is their employees, using CORPORATE RESOURCES on CORPORATE TIME that are endorsing voter fraud in order to ensure Democrat victories. This, to the left, is just fine. But if the Supreme Court dares to say that Corporations (inevitably exemplified by Exxon-Mobil, one of the larger US employers as well as being on damned near everyone's 401k plan but, to leftists like some on the Supreme Court, not members of our society) have the right to run ads, well, that's just wrong.

Another Bogus Global Warming Claim From UN

They're really tumbling now - I suspect there are two drivers. One is that the press, some of the press, is now actually taking a bit of a look into this BS whereas before they were simply parroting "BRRWAK - the science is settled, the science is settled! BRRWAK!"

The second is that, as their colleagues that were 'leading' this whole push get exposed as making stuff up, deleting data in order to keep it out of the hands of people bearing freedom of information requests, asking their colleagues to delete data and emails, "hiding the decline" with "tricks", and openly talking about manipulating science journal publications, they start to push the wool back from their eyes a bit and start to look at the data themselves. And find that maybe the science was never settled and, indeed, might not exist.

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."...

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored...

He found from 1950 to 2005 there was no increase in the impact of disasters once growth was accounted for. For 1970-2005, however, he found a 2% annual increase which "corresponded with a period of rising global temperatures,"

Muir-Wood was, however, careful to point out that almost all this increase could be accounted for by the exceptionally strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005. There were also other more technical factors that could cause bias, such as exchange rates which meant that disasters hitting the US would appear to cost proportionately more in insurance payouts...

He said: "All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global warming plays a part but can't find it. Muir-Wood's study actually confirmed that."

Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the Tyndall Centre, which advises the UK government on global warming, said there was no real evidence that natural disasters were already being made worse by climate change. He said: “A proper analysis shows that these claims are usually superficial”.

Is it just me or has the world's largest source of hot air gone awfully quiet? Where are you, Algore?

Obama Campaigned For Hateful, Dishonest Candidate

Let's not forget in all the excitement that Barack Obama personally jetted off to Massachusettes Massachusetts to campaign for Marcia Martha Coakley. In person.

Insulting and denigrating the guy who is now one of the 100 Senators he has to deal with. Insulting and denigrating his GM truck...the same GM that Obama took over. Recorded a robocall for her.

His veep campaigned for her.

Make no mistake, Obama tied his horse to this cart. He did nothing to repudiate the vile things her campaign and the Democrat party produced on her behalf. Her campaign never recalled them or apologized for them or repudiated them. He endorsed and actively campaigned for her, a woman whose campaign is notable for the following:

Here's what's being ignored, but should not be forgotten about this race: the sheer meanness of Martha Coakley and her campaign character assassins. TV reporters largely sanitized the race in the final days, refusing to cover the Coakley campaign's vicious direct-mail droppings against Republican Scott Brown. The cover-up was as shameless as the slander.

The Massachusetts Democratic Party mailed a package that announced: "1,736 Women Were Raped In Massachusetts in 2008; Scott Brown Wants Hospitals To Turn Them All Away." A TV commercial by Coakley flashed the words "Deny rape victims care" with a voiceover that announces, "Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims."...

The amendment Brown proposed was a conscience clause for Catholic health facilities, which have objected that "emergency contraception" can lead to an early abortion. Brown proposed that health providers who don't want to administer contraception must have a referral policy to a hospital that would provide it. That's hardly "turning away" a rape victim. The "turning way" line is not a stretch; it is a lie...

Coakley also demonstrated the secular liberal's intense desire to crush religious liberty in a radio interview on the same subject. When host Ken Pittman suggested there's still religious freedom in emergency rooms, Coakley said Catholics should avoid work in the field of health care: "You can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room."

Doesn't that sound like the pro-abortion movement's version of "Irish Need Not Apply"?

On the same weekend that liberal reporters went on the Sunday shows and railed against the Republicans for refusing to repudiate Rush Limbaugh for suggesting Obama would milk the earthquake in Haiti for political gain, there was silence on whether the Democrats should repudiate Coakley's attacks, or whether Obama would be willing to endorse them...

Reporters barely noticed that Obama slammed Republican Scott Brown in his Sunday appearance for Coakley, joking repeatedly about the GM truck Brown has driven around the state. He joked that Brown parked his truck on Wall Street, and "I'd think long and hard about getting in that truck with Martha's opponent. It might not take you where you want to go," said the man trying to bring the country together.

In a race for the "Ted Kennedy seat," Obama may want to avoid perilous driving jokes. But the media was there for their usual routine: to sanitize his partisanship.

A year later he's really polishing up his credentials, isn't he?

...On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics...

Another Obama Promise Flushed Down The Toilet

At least he's consistent...no promise is safe when the demagogue in chief is at work!

Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned...

"That's kind of weird," said another source, who has worked on "rule of law" issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. "There's lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work." [me- unlike the work Halliburton did in Iraq, work that no other single company in the world could do]...

Corporate rivals of Checchi were reluctant to speak on the record about the no-bid contract awarded to his firm because they feared possible retribution by the Obama administration in the awarding of future contracts...

As a candidate for president in 2008, then-Sen. Obama frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.

"I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all," the senator told a Grand Rapids audience on Oct. 2. "The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I'm in the White House."

Those remarks echoed an earlier occasion, during a candidates' debate in Austin, Texas on Feb. 21, when Mr. Obama vowed to upgrade the government's online databases listing federal contracts.

"If (the American people) see a bridge to nowhere being built, they know where it's going and who sponsored it," he said to audience laughter, "and if they see a no-bid contract going to Halliburton, they can check that out too.".

Less than two months after he was sworn into office, President Obama signed a memorandum that he claimed would "dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government."

Flanked by aides and lawmakers at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building on March 4, Obama vowed to "end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts," adding: "In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition....And that's completely unacceptable."

The March 4 memorandum directed the Office of Management and Budget to "maximize the use of full and open competition" in the awarding of federal contracts.

Federal campaign records show Checchi has been a frequent contributor to liberal and Democratic causes and candidates in recent years, including to Obama's presidential campaign...

Figures kept by OMB Watch, a non-profit research and advocacy group that tracks federal spending, show that no-bid contracts have been common under administrations controlled by both parties.

During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, for example, when Bill Clinton was president, as much as $139.2 billion in federal contracts was awarded without competitive bidding. The OMB Watch figures show that the practice appears to have accelerated sharply during the Bush administration, but the figures are not adjusted for inflation.

thanks to Kim at Wizbang for the tipoff on this one

Correction Requested - editoriaLIES

I have submitted a correction request to the Times Union's editorial page editor, Joann Crupi.

A Sunday editorial claimed that the Supreme Court "awarded" the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. A correction should be published to offset this misinformation. The Supreme Court, of course, merely ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had violated the Constitution, nothing more. 7 Justices agreed and 2 did not. The voters of America "awarded" the 2000 election to George W. Bush, including the voters of the State of Florida, as demonstrated by recount after recount of the votes, including by the New York Times and other news organizations after the fact. The Supreme Court did not rule on who had won the electoral votes of the State of Florida or any other State.

There is no factual basis (nor any artistic 'opinion' license) that justifies perpetuating this discredited myth a decade later.

And, for good measure, this ticks the 'lie count' up by 1, too.

Conference Championships

What an ugly, ugly Sunday of football. The Jets were proven to be the pretenders we all suspected they were (but the Chargers failed to address) and were ripped apart by Peyton Manning and his new toys, Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie. Move along, nothing to see here.

Then the real ugliness - New Orleans and Minnesota. Yech.

Ugh.

Blech.

No way, no way did the Saints deserve to win that game for a trip to the Super Bowl...no way. The Saints did little-to-nothing to win that game, particularly after halftime.

But the Vikings absolutely deserved to lose it. How many fumbles? Like 5?? And there has got to be some kind of cosmic or karmic justice in Favre, after being the catalyst for getting the Vikes that far, being the blade that slit there wrists at the end of the game...instead of trotting on his hurting ankle for 5 yards and a likely winning field goal he dons the big clown nose and tosses a pick.

Let the debates begin...did the Vikes get what they deserved gambling with the gambler? Or did they enhance their team by getting that far, something they couldn't have done without him?

What an ugly end to a couple of good seasons.

And, personally, I think that last pick or the questionable pass interference call in OT (I say that having not seen replays, so go easy on me) almost certainly made Indy the NFL champions this year. Minnesota might not have beaten them, but I think Manning will absolutely shred NO. I couldn't believe the line was only 4 - I figured 10.

editoriaLIES

Times Union, also on Thursday:

let the right wing set the agenda...as they have for the last year

Are you kidding? With a Democrat president, overwhelming majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof Senate it is the "right wing" that has "set the agenda" for the nation for the past year??!! What the hell have they been smoking?

Tax money for abortions overseas.

Socialization of health care.

Nationalization of private industries.

Unelected and unconfirmed "czars" dictating policy to American citizens and businesses.

Elimination of secret ballots for labor organization.

Crippling our economy to turn of last century levels in the name of bogus "global warming".

Abandoning our allies and embracing our enemies.

Weakening our intelligence community.

These are the things that have been the agenda of our "leaders" for the past year...and not a single one of them has been a "right wing" idea. I bet they couldn't even type this with a straight face.

No, they probably could. Even though later they put the lie to their statement...

If Republicans have emerged as the party of "No,"...

Ummm...if the "right wing" is setting the agenda, why would they be saying 'no' to it, huh? Exactly.

And even:

They can keep trying to compromise with intractable opponents who are determined to thwart the President's agenda at every turn.

I thought it was the "right wing" that was setting the agenda. Is Obama the "right wing"?

Finally, some common sense prevails, but not in the way they anticipate:

[Democrats] must come up with solutions that regular people can comprehend and support, and which Republicans would oppose only at their peril.

EXACTLY! If they actually started behaving ethically and producing real plans for real success, you know, like the alternatives the Republicans have been proposing for the past year, Republicans WOULD go along with them. Contrary to liberal belief, Republicans aren't just voting against this stuff because a Democrat proposed them, but because they're disastrous and the American people are vehemently opposed to them. Stop doing that and watch how fast they forge bipartisanship.

Editor To B1, Stat

Anybody read about snowboarder Lindsey Jacobellis in the Thursday Times Union? The front sports page article ended most unfortunately where it is broken to finish inside. The end of the first page reads:

Snowboardcross is a tangled crap

Please see GAMES B4

Uh....yeah? Really? I couldn't even imagine where they were going after using a vulgarity on the front sports page, one of the pages that kids would be likely to read. Turns out the sentence ends:

shoot consisting of four riders...

Ah. Except that's not right. The game is craps. It might be a "craps shoot", but it's most emphatically not a "crap shoot".

I don't want to even think about what a "crap shoot" is...particularly not while eating breakfast and reading the morning paper.

Talk about a death spiral...people read less papers, so they cut more staff, so the quality goes down, so people read less papers...

And what you end up with is a "crap shoot", apparently.

editoriaLIES

A Supreme Court decision in favor of the First Amendment and freedom and the loss of their 60th vote in the Senate really brought out the dishonesty in our papers. Funny how that works. The Gazette on Thursday, the 21st:

Never mind that Massachusetts voters all have health insurance...

I believe the number being bandied about is 97%, evidence that 'insurance for everyone'...isn't. Lie #1.

The economy...was left in shambles by George W. Bush...

Good one. Very funny. Except it's a big, fat lie. I could go really technical and pull in all kinds of stuff, but let's keep it simple.

It is Congress that controls spending. Congress has been controlled by Democrats since 2007. At the time that "George W. Bush" and the GOP lost control of spending and fiscal policy, unemployment was 4.6%. It now stands at 10%. It was 7.7% when Obama was sworn in. It now stands at 10%. When the Democrats took over the Dow Jones stood at about 10,700. Today it is at about 10,100. The NASDAQ is, well, unchanged at 2,205. The S&P was at about 1,250. Today it is at 1,090. In short, the economy has only tumbled since the Democrats took control of Congress, the body in America (but not in liberal dreams) that controls spending and taxes. Lie #2

...and while it has improved by many measures....

You've got to be **cking kidding me. Like what? Lending? Personal wealth? Unemployment? Lie #3.

Republicans, who have obstructed the new president at every turn...

The Republicans have a minority in the House and have been shut out of bill preparation. The Republicans, prior to Tuesday, held a minority in the Senate that could neither prevent bills being approved nor even filibuster and stop legislation since the Democrats could vote successfully for cloture. The Republicans, in short, had no ability to slow, stop, or impede the president. Lie #4.

in contrast with the Democrats who, in 1981 and 2001, went along quietly with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush

I won't even dignify this load of horses**t with a response. Lie #5. Historical revisionism at its most blunt and pathetic.

[Republicans] have managed to convince independents and Democrats alike that too much government money was thrown at the problems; that everything would have been hunky-dory by now if there had been less, not more, intervention

Go ahead, find a single elected Republican who said or implied any such thing. When you get back you'll note that this is like #6, they said no such thing. They agreed that action was necessary, they produced plans and introduced bills and amendments to that effect. The Democrats rejected each and every one. This is pure straw man, no one made this argument.

after years of failed [Republican] policies

Go ahead. Name one. When you finish looking, unsuccessfully, you'll find this is like #7. Iraq surge? Success. Tax cuts? Success. Welfare reform? Success. Etc. Etc.

Given how often they note that they're confused and perplexed by the Mass. vote result, no wonder they can't articulate anything true or believable on the subject.

How Can The Science Be Settled If There Is No Science?

At some point, don't we have to ask why the "settled science of global warming" keeps turning out to be offhand statements by a single person and a couple of data points in warm areas extrapolated out to entire planet?

In a report on global warming on KUSI television by Weather Channel founder and iconic TV weatherman John Coleman, that reticence has been traced to the deliberate manipulation and distortion of climate data by NASA...

Joseph D'Aleo, of Icecap.us, said the analysis found NASA "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations." The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35...

Stations in places such as the Andes and Bolivia have virtually vanished, meaning, according to D'Aleo, temperatures from these areas are now "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon."...

To us, it looks like just another example of ideologically driven climate deceit following the Climate Research Unit scandal and the fraudulent claim by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would soon vanish.

I suggest you check out that link O put in there at the end:

Lies And Demagoguery

If the guy had any respect for Americans would he lie and obfuscate like this in order to aggrandize his own power? I hardly think so:

Rather than praising Thursday's 5-4 decision to reverse the 1990 court ruling that banned corporations and unions from contributing directly to political campaigns as an advancement of liberty, President Obama condemned it.

"The Supreme Court," he said, "has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans...

"That's why I am instructing my administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

The president is betting the public will accept his rhetoric without checking his facts, and the facts in this case show that lawyers and law firms, not "Big Oil" or "Wall Street," are the biggest political contributors. According to opensecrets.org., 83% of their donations are going to Democrats in the current election cycle,

This is not unusual. In the 2008 cycle, Democrats took in 78% of lawyer and law-firm political dollars. In 2006, the ratio was 62% Democrats to 36% Republicans. Two years earlier, it was 80% to 20% in favor of the Democrats.

Maybe the president just doesn't consider lawyers and law firms to be special interests. OK, so how about the securities and investment industry, a sector Democrats have demonized and unfavorably link to Republicans? Is this group a special interest?

The president can define special interests any way he wants. But he can't redefine the fact that 73% of the political donations from the securities and investment industry — the "Wall Street" he apparently holds in such low regard — are going to Democrats in the 2010 cycle. In 2008, 64% went to Democrats, in 2004 it was 61% and in 2002 56%. In the 2006 cycle, the parties evenly split donations from the sector, each taking in 47%.

As telling as that is, our fact-checking exercise revealed another valuable nugget. Of the 50 industries and sectors categorized as contributors by opensecrets.org, Democrats are the top recipients during this cycle in all but two. Oil and gas, one of those named a "powerful interest," is ranked as the 14th largest political contributor, and the auto industry, which ranks 46th.

In short, the stampede of special interest money began long before the court's ruling, and Democrats are the biggest beneficiaries.

The president knows this, and so does Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Yet Schumer calls the court's ruling "poisonous" and, according to The Hill newspaper, promises to hold hearings "to explore ways to limit corporate spending on elections."

And another reason to dump the poisonous and dishonest Schumer.

Newt Does Mass.

Interesting and pointed analysis by Newt of the Massachusetts Senate special election, read it all here: The Lessons of Massachusetts. Read some of it here:

Lesson One: Candidates and Campaigns

The first lesson Republicans should take from Tuesday night’s victory is the GOP should run candidates everywhere this year and not worry about whether the district used to vote Republican...

Lesson Two: Being Positive Matters and Congressional Republicans Should Take Note

In the three winning campaigns (Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts) the Republican candidate has been issue-oriented and had a positive message. In each case, Republicans drew a principled, issue-oriented difference between themselves and the Democrats...

An alternative party can win huge victories in 2010 and 2012; an opposition party will have far fewer victories.

Now is the moment to reach out and offer to work with President Obama on jobs, health, education, national and homeland security, and balancing the budget.

Republicans can offer principled suggestions and seek to work with the President.

Republicans could not work with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid because they are committed to a high tax, big bureaucracy, secretive, politician-dominated, leftwing America...

Lesson Three: President Obama Has Had Two Bad Anniversaries and Now is the Moment for Him to Rethink What He Has Been Doing

...Analysts like Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg are warning that 2010 could become a catastrophic year for Democrats. At best it is going to be a bad year.

Charlie Cook’s recent National Journal article made the stunning point that since World War Two there have been only 12 months in even numbered (election) years in which unemployment was above 8%. All 12 months were in 1982. I was in Congress then, and we lost 26 seats.

This year America will almost certainly have 9% plus unemployment for the entire year. That alone bodes badly for the Democrats.

The President now has an excuse to stop, rethink, recalibrate, and learn some painful lessons.

President Bill Clinton did just that after the 1994 election.

President Jimmy Carter could not bring himself to change.

President Obama has a lot of time to make course corrections, but it will involve real change (see the truck lesson below) in both policy and process.

No more secret deals.

No more Pelosi-Reid machine votes.

No more leftwing, Democrats-only strategies.

The leftwing leadership in the House and Senate would hate and fight such a change in course.

Moderate Democrats (and most Americans) would breathe a sigh of relief.

Lesson Four: Republicans Should Offer To Help Solve America’s Jobs, Security, Deficit, and Health Challenges through an Open, Transparent Legislative Process

This is the right moment for House and Senate Republicans to offer to meet with the President and start a new health reform process...

Lesson Five: The Tea Parties and Populism Are Real

One of the funniest moments in the Massachusetts special election was an email from Senator John Kerry (D-MA) warning liberals that the Tea Parties were trying to bring a Tea Party to Massachusetts.

Apparently in his French finishing schools no one had informed Senator Kerry that the first tea party was in Boston.

The Tea Party movement is going to be a major force in 2010 and 2012.

It represents a real uprising of angry and frightened Americans who are fed up with both parties...

Making All The Wrong Moves

Leave it to Obey-Won and his faithful Debt-i Knights to make the wrong move basically every time.

How would you deal with getting slapped, AGAIN, by a vast majority of independent voters (not to mention 22% of Democrats) who voted, they tell pollsters, against the direction you are steering the nation?

They want jobs.

They want national security, not to hear the person in charge of national security telling us that "the system worked" because a terrorist and known threat had a faulty bomb and was tackled by passengers on a plane.

They want to keep their health care, maybe with some improvements, but not replaced.

They don't want to keep bailing out Wall Street while claiming that it is the other guys that Wall Street is in bed with.

They don't want to keep mortgaging more and more generations to pay for other peoples' mistakes and your own reckless bribery.

They don't want to be labeled terrorists, Nazis, or insulted with vulgar homosexual smears by elected officials.

They sure as hell don't want to be insulted, marginalized, and dismissed by an openly biased press.

They don't want to be talked talked talked talked talked to...and particularly not down to...and totally not down your nose at.

They don't want the government nationalizing businesses to draw praise from Marxists like Hugo Chavez.

They want jobs.

They don't want their employer portrayed as some sort of corrupt anti-America monster whose profits are despicable and loathsome...particularly since it is those profits that help make their company better and get them more money.

They don't want to insult our allies and look like fools in the face of the world, which they don't find as an improvement over faulty claims that the world didn't like us...they'd rather we be considered dangerous to evil regimes than mocked and laughed at any day.

They don't want to be told to shut up and get out of the way when they've taken a day off from work to attend a rally and have their voice heard.

They want jobs.

They don't want to be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

They don't want their kids to be taught about 'fisting' at school.

They don't want to hear how their car is making the entire planet Earth heat up while they know that the world is freezing this winter.

They don't want to reward failure.

They don't want the government to force banks to do things that raise their fees and interest rates.

They don't want every announcement from the president to send their 401K spiraling downward.

They don't want their taxes to go up while being told, ludicrously, that the government is being fiscally responsible.

They want JOBS and they know that the employers in their community ARE, most emphatically, "part of society" and hire them and their neighbors and know better how to make more jobs than do union bosses with cadillac health plans that have unlimited access to you, or liberal 'thinkers' that want to follow FDR's disastrous policies.

So, what would you do?

What's Obama doing?

Campaigning.

For crying out loud, he's even got a NAME for his "tour".

They Just Don't Get It

The cluelessness of the liberal media continues to amaze...from TimesWatch, comes a report not really about what I'm mentioning here, but I found hilarious in a 'we're doomed' sort of way:

Chief political reporter Adam Nagourney penned Wednesday's front-page “news analysis” from Boston on the shocking triumph by Republican Scott Brown to fill the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts formally occupied by the late Ted Kennedy...

Scott Brown, a Republican state senator for only five years, shocked and arguably humiliated the White House and the Democratic Party establishment by defeating Martha Coakley in the race for a United States Senate seat.

I will bet you large piles of cash that he never even realized how idiotic he looks sneering at Brown's five years of experience as a State Senator without comprehending that Brown's five years of experience dwarfed that of Obama when he ran for the US Senate and even that of Obama before he ran for President!

But the press never bothered to pay attention to the utter lack of experience that is leading to failure after failure by their god before, they surely don't see it now.