Your Random Saturday

Damn, Ben. Kick him again, why don't'cha?

As the rest of the country suffers through a real unemployment rate of about 20 percent according to certain estimates, President Obama takes jaunts to Maine with his family -- and he makes sure to fly his dog, Bo, into town on a separate jet. He holds concerts at the White House, where he and Michelle get to watch Nathan Lane make gay jokes and Elaine Stritch croak out her signature tunes while averring, "I'd love to get drunk with the president." In case you didn't catch President Obama's last White House concert, make sure to tune into PBS on July 28 for a replay of his June 2 event featuring Sir Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, Elvis Costello, the Jonas Brothers, Herbie Hancock and Faith Hill, among others.

According to press reports, President Obama has played 41 rounds of golf since his accession to office. He's played seven of those rounds since April 20, when the Gulf oil spill occurred. How many rounds of golf have you played since the beginning of the recession in July 2008?...

That's why he sees no problem whatsoever in feasting on ice cream and lobster in Bar Harbor, while lecturing Republicans about their cruelty in holding up yet another extension of "unemployment benefits" (that phrase gets scare quotes once you've been on the unemployment rolls for two years). That's why Obama makes conspicuous consumption his lifestyle, even as he scoffs at the exploding national debt. He's enjoying the good life; why shouldn't you? He's not working; why should you? Let those benighted conservative businesspeople sweat it out -- President Obama is inviting you to a free taxpayer-funded vacation.

Seriously...kick him again.

David Limbaugh whizzes on Obama's bully pulpit:

--The White House started railing against BP and condemning it for the spill, saying it would keep its boot on BP's throat. With Attorney General Eric Holder at his side, Obama shook down BP for millions to contribute toward the problem. Concerning the spill, Obama told Matt Lauer he was talking to experts about "whose ass to kick." Also, as Obama was pointing fingers at BP, he said he wouldn't tolerate finger-pointing from oil executives. Too rich for words.

--When inspector general Gerald Walpin blew the whistle on Obama's friends, the White House not only summarily fired Walpin but also slandered him as someone who'd lost his mental faculties.

--When non-Republican attorney Tom Lauria publicly objected to the administration's gross discrimination against his preferred creditor clients in favor of Obama's union friends on the Chrysler restructuring, a lawyer for Obama's auto industry task force called Lauria a terrorist, and Obama castigated his client, which was just trying to assert its legal rights, as "a small group of speculators."

--When John McCain openly disagreed with an Obama point during the health care summit, Obama reminded McCain "the election is over." Some dialogue there, huh?

--Obama said he didn't want opponents of his agenda -- "the folks who created the mess" -- "to do a lot of talking."...

--He categorically maligned general practitioner physicians and surgeons as corrupt and greedy when he said they would deliberately perform unnecessary but more lucrative procedures.

Dennis Prager Stands Alone

I've said it before, sometimes a columnist simply gets into the zone...if they were a character in the NBA Jam game, they'd be glowing and swishing from half-court...on fire, indeed. Dennis Prager's there right now. Another stand-alone column worthy of your attention:

Perhaps the most telling of the recent revelations of the liberal/left Journolist, a list consisting of about 400 major liberal/left journalists, is the depth of their hatred of conservatives. That they would consult with one another in order to protect candidate and then President Obama and in order to hurt Republicans is unfortunate and ugly. But what is jolting is the hatred of conservatives, as exemplified by the e-mail from an NPR reporter expressing her wish to personally see Rush Limbaugh die a painful death -- and the apparent absence of any objection from the other liberal journalists...

From Karl Marx to today, the Left has always hated people on the Right, not merely differed or been angry with them.

The question is: why?

Here are three possible answers.

First, the left thinks the right is evil.

Granting for exceptions that all generalizations allow for, conservatives believe that those on the left are wrong, while those on the left believe that those on the right are bad, not merely wrong. Examples are innumerable. For example, Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic Party said, "In contradistinction to the Republicans ... (Democrats) don't believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night."

Or take Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who, among many similar comments, said, "I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It's very simple: We have a conscience."

Has any spokesman of the Republican Party ever said anything analogous about Democrats not caring about the suffering of children or not having a conscience?

Second, when you don't confront real evil, you hate those who do.

You can see this on almost any school playground. The kid who confronts the school bully is often resented more than the bully. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or fear that the one who confronted the bully would provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does. During the 1980s, the left expressed far more hatred of Ronald Reagan than of Soviet Communist dictator Leonid Brezhnev. And, when Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire," the liberal world was enraged ... at Reagan...

Today, the left has similar contempt for those who take a hard line on Islamic terror...The real enemies the Democratic administration is prepared to name are the Republican Party, tea parties, Fox News and talk radio.

Third, the left's utopian vision is prevented only by the right.

From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion. As Ted Kennedy, famously quoting his brother Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Some (people) see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?" That exemplifies leftwing idealism -- imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives. How could a utopian not hate a conservative?...

This hatred will only increase if the left feels its programs to greatly increase the size of the government are in any way threatened in the forthcoming elections. The problem is that this hatred does not decrease even when the left is in power.

Sunlight Disinfecting The Media

A big splash of sunlight known as the 'journolist leak' is putting some attention where it belongs...on the increasingly partisan and borderline corrupt (depending on the particular source) mainstream media. Which is good for me because it's sparking some more interest in media bias...check it out.

John Hawkins: Seven Deceptive Mainstream Media Techniques

...If you don't understand the story AND the slant, you don't understand the story. So, with that in mind, here are just some of the mainstream media's favorite tricks.

1) Leaving out context. The enormous amount of attention the Shirley Sherrod story has gotten is ironic, in that the story is that a liberal's comments were taken out of context the same way conservative comments are taken out of context every day of the week...That's why there is a vast and thriving new media on the Right: because the mainstream media only provides half of the story and people have to go elsewhere to get the whole truth.

2) Sloppy errors that hurt conservatives. Nine times out of ten, if a mainstream media outlet gets a story wrong, it will either help liberals or hurt conservatives. Very seldom will you see an "honest mistake" that makes a liberal look bad. That's because they'll double and triple check anything that hurts their own side...

3) The label game. A Republican who does something wrong is almost always clearly labeled as a Republican, while surprisingly often, a Democrat's party affiliation is mysteriously left out of stories that make the party look bad. You'll notice the same trend with think tanks. A conservative think tank is labeled as such. A liberal think tank is just a think tank...

4) Painting the fringes as the mainstream. There's nothing wrong with covering birthers, morons with racist signs at Tea Parties, or losers like David Duke. However, it is a problem when those people are painted as being part of the mainstream of the conservative movement.

It's also hard to miss the fact that the mainstream media doesn't do the same thing with the Left. They don't show the public outrageous signs from anti-war rallies or the pro-illegal immigration protests and try to claim that those are widely expressed sentiments. How about the idea that Bush was behind 9/11 or at least knew about it and allowed it to happen? That was -- and still is -- a very popular conspiracy theory on the Left...

5) The front page or the back page. Have an embarrassing story about a conservative? That's front page material and if it's a half way decent story, it may be good for a week's worth of stories. Get a similarly embarrassing story about a liberal? Welcome to a brief article on page A-18 -- and that's if they run it at all...

6) The slant. Barack Obama has been roughed up a little bit by the media over the oil spill. But, how does it compare to the sort of coverage Bush got in the aftermath of Katrina?...When Democrats win office, the American people "have spoken." When Republicans win, the American people are "throwing a tantrum." When Democrats disagree with the party in charge, they're speaking "the truth to power." But, when Republicans do the same thing, they’re seditious, potentially dangerous, mean spirited ogres from the "party of no.”

And we even get a 2nd column - Scott Wheeler and Buckley Carlson: The Media, Tea Parties & Radical Muslims

Here’s a seemingly simple question: What is scarier? A loosely organized group of American citizens, expressing their peaceful – if passionate – discontent with their representative government by congregating en masse in a public place? OR, a well-funded, smartly organized, subversive, fearless and deeply militant, ruthlessly committed group of freedom-hating, America-despising, radical Jihadists, plotting further destruction and the violent death of innocent men, women and children?

If you say the latter – and how could you not? – then you must NOT be a member of the so called “mainstream media.”

Ponder that for a moment. And before you dismiss it as a gratuitously incendiary conversation-starter, ask yourself these Five Salient Questions:

1. When was the last time you saw a network or cable news interviewer (Fox, the lone exception) display any skepticism when a self-described “peaceful” Muslim declined to condemn terrorist activity?

2. Why is the term “Radical Islam” disappearing from news accounts (earning only 336 Google News hits at press time) when there is zero evidence that Islamic Jihad or Islamic-sponsored terrorism is on the wane? To the contrary. [Incidentally, the terms “racist” and “tea party,” when mated, garner some 7,050 Google News hits…over just the past ten days.]

3. Who is a more frequent recipient of overt media-scorn in contemporary America? Sarah Palin…or Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the “alleged” 911 mastermind? [“Who?” you say. Is this even a contest?]

4. When was the last time that you heard someone on TV describe Christianity as a “peaceful” religion?

5. What is the death toll in America – and around the World – from the vast and “smelly” [see Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) “Constituent Guide to a Blissfully Brief DC Visit”] hordes of Tea Party Activists? And from Radical Islam?!?!

...And when it comes to actual, bona fide adherents and enthusiasts of radical Islam? Well, many of these same reporters are scurrying to offer privacy protections and guarantees under the U.S. Constitution, the “living” symbol of the very freedoms these barbarous cretins so revile...

The Silence Is Deafening

The Obama administration, unable to push an immigration overhaul through Congress, is considering ways it could go around lawmakers to allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States, according to an agency memo.

Didn't the liberals routinely froth at the mouth and burn Bush in effigy over their fears that ANY MINUTE NOW Bush was going to suspend the 2004 election to stay in power, the 2008 election to stay in power, declare himself dictator for life, ignore the Democrat Congress after 2007, etc etc...wasn't he called a dictator routinely?...too often to count accused of considering himself an emperor and a king?

Right.

Awesome

Quality photo from Michelle Malkin's site...

"No deficit spending; high ethical standards, civility in debate; you'll see, it's going to be a new day." - Nancy Pelosi


COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES B. RANGEL

STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION

Trousers Aflame

Seems like I keep pointing to this one, don't I?

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

President Obama Once Again Makes Erroneous Claim That Foreign Entities Can Spend Unlimited Amounts in U.S. Elections

President Barack Obama on Monday incorrectly stated that a landmark campaign-finance ruling allows foreign entities to pour money into U.S. elections. It’s the second time he’s made such a claim, and this time it happened while he was promoting the Democrats’ DISCLOSE Act in a Rose Garden speech...

“Tomorrow there’s going to be a very important vote in the Senate about how much influence special interests should have over our democracy,” Obama said. “Because of the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in the Citizens United case, big corporations -- even foreign-controlled ones -- are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on American elections.”

Obama made a similar claim in his State of the Union Address, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to mouth the words “not true.” The majority opinion itself and liberal commentators attested that Alito was correct...

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the FEC lifted restrictions on companies, unions, and other organizations, allowing them to make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

That ruling, however, did not allow corporations to contribute directly to a campaign or to coordinate expenditures with a campaign. Nor did the ruling lift existing law that blocks foreign contributions to political campaigns.

Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.”

Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations to political campaigns...

Obama keeps on lyin', but all the press gets worked up about is when Sarah Palin has a typo in one of the Facebook posts they follow breathlessly.

Racial Intimidation In Congress

As I read this not-so-surprising report about the hot ethics water now well above Rangel's head, this very interesting statement jumped out at me:

The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has warned Democrats against a rush to judgment, and any lawmaker with a significant African-American constituency must consider whether it's worth asking Rangel to quit.

I had to read it a few times, it's worded a bit oddly.

First, let me remind you a bit about the Congressional Black Caucus. They're the black lawmakers that vehemently defend any of their number, that would be fellow blacks, no matter how damning the evidence is against them, like "Cold Cash" William Jefferson, the guy that was taking bribes and got caught with like $90,000 in his freezer...the same one that Pelosi tried to get appointed to key security committees even after this stuff came out. They're also the ones that refused admittance to a white lawmaker that was elected to represent a district that is overwhelmingly black, in other words, a guy that clearly has black interests and concerns close at hand. That's them.

Ok.

So the black Congressmen got together and "warned" the Democrats not to "rush" to judgment on this case that's been investigated for 2 years.

Then the really interesting bit of what I can only classify as racial intimidation...

They specifically told lawmakers that have a lot of black constituents that they shouldn't join the chorus asking Rangel to quit...I can only assume because they or other black groups would then accuse said lawmaker of racism for daring to ask a crook to quit...just because he's black.

And, oh hey...

Remember...

They don't want special treatment...just equal treatment.

There's your laugh of the day.

Until you realize that this is what we have come to with race in America thanks to people like them. Then you'll probably stop laughing.

Obfuscation

obfuscation: 2 : confuse (obfuscate the reader)

example: Initial jobless claims drop to 457,000

New jobless claims fell last week for the third time in four weeks but remain elevated. The decline is a sign that the economy added jobs in July, still not enough to lower the nation's high unemployment rate...

That suggests layoffs may be easing...

"The rate of jobless claims is consistent with some growth in total employment," said Zach Pandl, an economist at Nomura Securities. Pandl forecasts that businesses added about 85,000 jobs in July — about the same as in June but not enough to rapidly reduce the unemployment rate, currently at 9.5 percent.

Requests for unemployment insurance fell steadily last year from their peak of 651,000, reached in March 2009. But they have remained stuck above 450,000 for most of this year. In a healthy economic recovery with rapid hiring, claims usually fall below 400,000.

The economy has grown since last summer, but the pace of growth is slowing. The government is scheduled Friday to release an estimate of gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's output, for the April-June period. Economists forecast it will show growth slowed to a 2.5 percent annual rate, down from 2.7 percent in the first quarter and 5.6 percent in last year's fourth quarter...

First, let's be clear. It is simply an undeniable mathematical fact that the economy needs to add something like 400,000 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. If you add no jobs, but lose none, you still fall behind (until ObamaCare starts killing people off, of course). In light of that, look again at some of the ludicrous claims in this story. Remember, this story is about new unemployment claims last week. When you say it more clearly - nearly a half million Americans applied for unemployment last week for the first. Time. And this is ongoing and steady. Week in and week out a half million more people are going on unemployment.

This is spun as moderately good news. A full year and a half after Obama and the Debt-i's in Congress pledged a trillion dollars to 'fix' the economy, we're still putting a half million people on unemployment week in and week out. This performance is what is being touted as success as Obama and Biden spend millions flying around the country telling places with 13% unemployment how much better they off with all this debt creation.

This story actually dares to claim that a nearly unmeasurably small number of new jobs is "not enough to lower the nation's high unemployment rate". No? Hell, it's hundreds of thousands of jobs away from keeping it from going up. Talk about spinning something as well as you can (which isn't very well, I'll admit that).

What else do they say? "layoffs may be easing". Easing? Now?? We were supposed to be recovering LAST SUMMER AND FALL. And yet the fact of the matter is that they're HOPING that LAYOFFS might finally be slowing, let alone that we're seeing the job creation that we should have seen LAST SUMMER OR FALL during any other recession cycle.

"Pandl forecasts that businesses added about 85,000 jobs in July — about the same as in June but not enough to rapidly reduce the unemployment rate"...EXCUSE ME? Not enough to "rapidly reduce" the rate? How about being honest...this isn't enough to keep the unemployment rate from rising. Again, simple math.

You know what also typically happens after recessions? The recovery shoots up at like 5-7% GDP growth. It's a higher than normal (3%) number because, when you shrink in previous quarters you have to grow fast to get back on the same curve, right? What are we seeing? One sorta high quarter that has been exposed as a result of almost nothing but government spending (which is part of the GDP measure), and since then we're slowing and slowing to well below what is even normal growth.

Never Mind the Darkness, Obama Says it's Morning in America!

The president, Tiny Tim Geithner and much of the complicit media like using phrases like “we have turned the corner,” talking about some sort of economic recovery underway. Joe Biden went so far as to dub this “The Summer of Recovery.”

It’s tripe. The almost entirely unreported fact is that personal income, excluding government transfer payments, has been declining and continues to decline, something never before seen in a recovery out the back end of a recession. The need to extend the unemployment welfare again, this time to the not-coincidental election month of November (when you can count on it being extended again) should tell all that needs known about the mythical recovery. But in case you missed this, the FHA, the VA, even the Dept. of Agriculture plus Fannie and Freddie are making and backing no-down payment, 3 percent-down payment and low-down payment mortgage loans at furious pace, by their own spokespersons’ admission to keep the housing market from falling off a cliff. Last week, the administration and media gleefully reported a jump in new home sales from May to June, ignoring the fact of a year to year 17 percent slump...

And there can be no significant jobs recovery and creation while the president is taking his own big, bloody axe to one entire industry after another, threatening small business owners with massive income tax hikes, uncertain health care mandates and costs, possible certainly higher energy-related costs from cap ‘n trade (freight, on goods shipped, for example), postage hikes, etc., etc., etc. And every time he demonizes the teeny-tiny, evil, rich minority that are under-taxed, and are not “working people,” he causes more uncertainty among the very people who have the capital to create real jobs.

There are some businesses hiring, but many more frozen, and more still hurrying at all possible speed to reduce workforces wholesale, by any means. For example, an automated self-checkout technology of the kind that has gradually been replacing clerks in supermarkets, Wal-Marts and other large chains has been built and perfected for convenience stores and will soon be sweeping the nation, eliminating at least one job per shift per store...

In his progress report on the economy delivered as lunch-time speech last week, the president spoke of expanding their successful small business programs. If he can show me a single successful small business program he and his gang have created so as to call it theirs, I’ll donate $50,000.00 to any charity of his choice. Except ACORN or any controlled by George Soros...

Make no mistake, the economy is a mess and no one outside of the utterly blind and/or dishonest socialists in charge think it's going to get any better any time soon (AP survey: A bleaker outlook for economy into 2011).

Gotta keep the truth in front of people as much as possible, that means doing it in person, because people won't get it from the news or papers, should they actually still consume such things:

Instead, Republicans in Congress have been offering a number of proposals to enact tax incentives for businesses and workers to boost incomes, spur new capital investment and create many more jobs.

Last year, for example, in the midst of the legislative battle over the Obama spending stimulus bill debate, the 115-member House Republican Study Committee called for an additional across-the-board 5 percent tax cut, and lowering of the top corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.

More recently, Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, on behalf of the Republican Study Committee, introduced H.R. 5029, the Economic Freedom Act, which would cut the deficit and end the bank bailout program and Obama's remaining stimulus spending binge. Among this bill's other provisions:

-- Cut the payroll tax in half for the remainder of 2010, thus putting immediate cash into worker paychecks and sharply lowering each employer's hiring costs.

-- Reduce the individual and corporate capital gains tax to spur new business capital investment in the economy.

-- Lower the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent; eliminate the death tax and provide business expense tax breaks for new equipment and technology to accelerate business reinvestment.

Few Americans know about these and many other Republican proposals -- which would provide an influx of business growth and new jobs -- because they do not get reported in the nightly network news shows...

"Many stimulus jobs were temporary, but more jobs have been added since March, so the total impact remains about 1.1 million temporary jobs, costing taxpayers about $700,000 each -- not a good bargain!"

Obama's "blame game" strategy, as Morici calls it, doesn't hold water. "President Obama is again blaming Republicans for blocking his agenda," he notes, "but Congress has given him his head," passing virtually his entire economic agenda.

WaPo Admits Spreading The Wealth Doesn't Make Everyone Better Off

The TU ran with this Washington Post story (part of it) about how good credit card customers are getting the shaft from Obey-Won and the Debt-i Knights' crackdown on the consumer credit industry. What I've said several times, good customers that pay their bills and earn rewards are taking it up the rear since Obama and friends made it so that people that don't pay their bills aren't punished:

Good credit isn't what it used to be - With cardholders more frugal, issuers raise fees for better customers (7-22-10)

A new study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that annual fees and service fees have increased over the past year while penalty charges -- which are subject to the new federal regulations -- remained largely unchanged. Meanwhile, some cards are encouraging customers to charge more by offering enhanced rewards*, allowing the issuer to capture "swipe fees" paid by merchants. And one issuer even allegedly threatened to reject consumers with high credit scores because they didn't boost the bottom line...

Though industry experts say the case is extreme, it illustrates the challenges credit card companies face. Issuers typically generate revenue from two sources, interest rates and fees. Congress has clamped down on both of those channels this year, including banning interest rate hikes on outstanding balances and curtailing penalty fees for late payments and over-limit purchases. The new rules are estimated to cost the industry at least $12 billion annually, according to law firm Morrison & Foerster, and issuers have long warned that customers in good standing could wind up paying the bill.

"A lot of people thought they were blowing smoke, but they were spot on," said John Ulzheimer, head of consumer education for Credit.com. "Now something has to give."...

Some consumers say they feel penalized for what they thought was good behavior. D.C. resident Alanna Sobel said she pays her balance in full each month and was surprised to get a letter from Chase, the nation's largest card issuer, notifying her that the annual fee on her Freedom card would be $30. The letter stated that the fee had been waived the previous year and would allow her to receive 3 percent cash back on gas and grocery purchases. If she did not pay the fee, she would have to settle for fewer perks...

*Speaking as one with excellent credit who has shopped for a good rewards card in the past 3 months, I feel comfortable calling this statement horsespit. It's almost impossible to get a good rewards card now, if any are offering "enhanced rewards" they're limited to airline miles, are tied to high annual fee cards, or they exist only in the writer's mind.

editoriaLIES

Times Union gets all riled up to the point where the lies start flying on Thu the 22nd:

A CASUALTY OF HATE TALK ...

A fraction of the truth can be as false -- and damaging -- as a lie.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....

ahem.

excuse me.

There's plenty of blame to go around, from the NAACP to the media to the White House -- to everyone who rushed to judgment before the facts were in.

Insert guffaw here and tack on "like the Times Union" to the end of that.

Tea Party conservatives had just been embarrassed by a failed satire by a leader of the Tea Party Express, Mark Williams, painting the NAACP as fighting for slavery and handouts

Lie #1, "Tea Party conservatives" simply denounced his moronic behavior, said he didn't speak for or represent them, and moved on. Simply a lie in their attempt to smear conservatives with his behavior.

Mr. Breitbart posted the clip in a piece headlined "Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism--2010." Blogs and news organizations picked it up. The NAACP denounced Ms. Sherrod. The Obama administration pressured her to resign

This was never about Sherrod. Lie #2 is the claim that it was. This was, as indicated, about the NAACP, not Ms. Sherrod. That's why the video was "selectively edited", because the parts not about the NAACP behavior were not included...because they had nothing to do with the subject matter. It's like, I dunno, claiming that game shows "selectively edit" out the portions 'not affecting the outcome' in order to deceive viewers. Just doesn't make sense. More importantly, overlooking the 'not affecting the outcome' part, no, actively saying the opposite is dishonest...a lie.

The media -- including outlets like Fox and CNN -- might have done more reporting before taking the clip at face value. The Obama administration should have weathered a little media frenzy while it got all the facts, too.

Slightly embedded lie here, but one nonetheless. The NAACP and the White House reacted before the story ever appeared on FoxNews or CNN. Lie #3. (update: link)

Confidence Men

Consumer confidence continues to drag when it's not plummeting. Boy, people sure think Obama's got all the answers and think Bush and the GOP is responsible for the crappy economy, still.

Right?

Yeah, right.

Eco-Terrorists Hijack Euro Carbon Trade Site

Guardian:

Anti-carbon trading activists shut down the website of the European Climate Exchange (ECX), over the weekend, replacing the site with a spoof page lampooning the industry.

The website of the London-based carbon credit trading platform was hacked at close to midnight on Friday and showed the spoof homepage for around 22 hours. It then took technical staff another day to restore the official homepage.

Instead of its normal rolling ticker data listing bids for carbon credit futures, the ECX website blared: "Super promo – climate on sale: Guaranteed profit!"...

"Attempting to cause as much inconvenience, economical loss and image damage as possible, we deliberately tried to maximise the virtual damage," said the hacker, who spoke on condition of anonymity...

I'm thinking the Democrats can't set up the same thing in the US fast enough for me!

Media Opening Up

Could it be that the struggling newsmedia has finally decided to unhitch their wagon from the cart being pulled by a faltering horse? Could self-preservation be the one thing that finally tears the press' lips away from Obama's rear end? Could be...just look at the admissions in this AP story:

President Barack Obama, who rocketed to the White House promising "change you can believe in," is now telling voters they shouldn't change a thing.

His message for the fall elections, which are looking ominous for his Democrats, is that Republicans caused the nation's economic troubles, but he and the Democrats are starting to fix them. So stick with the Democrats and don't go back to the GOP...

Trouble is, it's a tough sell to voters who've seen little progress.

Unemployment is stuck near double digits and polls show many voters have decided Obama's policies are to blame, not his predecessor's.

Obama often frames the argument by saying that Republicans had their chance to drive, then drove the car into a ditch and shouldn't get the keys back. But voters may be concluding that Democrats, who control the White House and both chambers of Congress, have had their chance at the wheel, too, and haven't gotten very far...

Now, even though unemployment hasn't dropped to the 8 percent level the administration once projected, the economy is gradually picking up and adding jobs, the president says. Putting Republicans in power, he contends, would reverse the momentum...

The narrative that worked so well when Obama was a presidential candidate offering himself as a transformational figure who could change Washington is no longer at his disposal. He can hardly claim to have delivered on that promise because he hasn't changed Washington, at least not much, as he's acknowledged...

Conservative Resurgence IX

This one's courtesy of David Limbaugh:

I am continually mystified by conservatives who urge Republicans to pick their battles against Obama out of fear we'll compromise our effectiveness if we oppose him every time he needs to be opposed. What a defeatist mindset!

...I reject the notion that Republicans possess a finite amount of political capital to oppose bills that are bad for America. It's not as if they're playing "Monopoly" and must conserve their "Monopoly" money. This isn't about what's good for the Republican Party. It's about opposing -- as a matter of principle -- Obama's systematic assault on America. Americans understand that...

Modern history bears this out. Ronald Reagan won landslides by sticking to his conservative principles, albeit imperfectly. George H.W. Bush lost favor with the electorate, starting with his base, for defecting from conservative principles, e.g., with his broken "no new taxes" pledge.

George W. Bush lost favor with the electorate far more because of his betrayal of conservative principles on domestic policy than because of the unpopularity of the protracted Iraq war. Liberals would have us believe Dubya was too conservative, but for mainstreamers, he wasn't nearly conservative enough.

Republicans urgently need to jump onto the Obamacare repeal bandwagon because if left in place, even if significantly diluted, it will destroy the best health care system in the world, greatly erode our individual liberties, further expand the government and bureaucratic classes, and accelerate the nation's financial ruin. You cannot leave any of it in place because, like all government programs, it will mushroom again at the first opportunity. Obama was counting on this when he shoved and bribed through Obamacare, knowing that it would be very difficult to repeal it once in place.

If Republicans lead the repeal effort, they should not have to expend one molecule of political capital in the process, because every one of their reasons is in line with the will of the people and what is good for the nation.

On the other hand, if they approach this fecklessly and nibble around at the edges, as even some conservative congressmen have suggested, they'll greatly dispirit their base and undermine the cause of principled opposition. They will be giving our Alinskyite president a gift and playing right into his hands. They will be enabling -- after the fact -- his sordid, corrupt methods to pass Obamacare in the first place...

They mustn't agonize over whether to filibuster Elena Kagan, who is manifestly contemptuous of the United States Constitution as written. The Democrats -- Obama himself -- set the precedent for such filibusters, and Republicans have to fight fire with fire. No more Mr. Nice Guy, and no more apologies for standing against these monumentally wrongheaded judges. This is a no-brainer, so quit dithering and oppose her, and do it openly and unapologetically...

Half-measures won't work against tyranny.

Your Random Saturday

Never hurts to remind people what Cuba's communist dictators stand for...Humberto Fontova:

In the predawn darkness of July 13, 1994, 72 desperate Cubans - old and young, male and female - sneaked aboard a decrepit but seaworthy tugboat in Havana harbor and set off for the U.S. and the prospect of freedom. Let Jack Nicholson label their captive homeland "a paradise!" Let Bonnie Raitt rasp out her ditty calling it a "Happy Little Island!" Let Ted Turner hail their slavemaster as a "Helluva guy!" Let Democratic party honcho Frank Mankiewics proclaim Castro "one of the most charming men I've ever met!" Let Michael Moore hail the glories of Cuba's healthcare in Sicko. Let Barbara Walters add gravitas while soft-soaping Castro during an "interview": "you have brought great health to your country."...

A few miles into the turbulent sea, 30-year-old Maria Garcia felt someone tugging her sleeve. She looked down and it was her 10-year-old son, Juan. "Mami, look!" and he pointed behind them toward shore. "What's those lights?"...

In seconds the patrol boats were alongside the tug and - WHACK!! - with its steel prow, the closest patrol boat rammed the back of the tug. People were knocked around the deck like bowling pins...

This gave the gallant Castroites nice targets for their water cannon. WHOOSH! The water cannon was zeroed and the trigger yanked. The water blast shot into the tug, swept the deck and mowed the escapees down, slamming some against bulkheads, blowing others off the deck into the five-foot waves...

WHACK! Another of the steel patrol boats turned sharply and rammed the tug from the other side. Then - CRACK! another from the front! WHACK! The one from behind slammed them again. The tug was surrounded. It was obvious now: The ramming was NO accident. And in Cuba you don't do something like this without strict orders from WAY above.

"We have women and children aboard!" The men yelled. "We'll turn around! OK?!"

WHACK! the Castroites answered the plea by ramming them again. And this time the blow from the steel prow was followed by a sharp snapping sound from the wooden tug. In seconds the tug started coming apart and sinking. Muffled yells and cries came from below. Turns out the women and children who had scrambled into the hold for safety after the first whack had in fact scrambled into a watery tomb...

Fortunately, a Greek freighter bound for Havana had happened upon the scene of slaughter and sped to the rescue. NOW one of the Castro boats threw out some life preservers on ropes and started hauling people in, pretending they'd been doing it all along...

Thirty one people were finally plucked from the seas and hauled back to Cuba where all were jailed or put under house arrest. They hadn't been through enough, you see. But a few later escaped Cuba on rafts and reached Miami. Hence we have Maria Garcia's gut-wrenching testimony presented to the UN, the OAS and Amnesty International, who all filed "complaints," reports, "protests.”(with the customary results.)

If?

Interesting little turn of phrase here in an AP story...a mere 18 months into the Obama regime:

The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news for President Barack Obama should he seek re-election in 2012...

Interesting.

Pile o' Bias

There sure is a lot of flailing and lashing out going on, isn't there? Bush, FoxNews, TEA partiers...pretty much everyone not responsible for the mess we're in today. Biased? How can you say the press is biased?

Reality Check: NYT Implies Fox to Blame for Sherrod, But White House Acted Before Story Ran

Fox News didn't run a report on the controversy until after Sherrod had resigned under White House pressure and after the NAACP had issued a press release condemning Sherrod. Yet in “For Fired Agriculture Official, Flurry of Apologies and Job Offer,” reported by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Shaila Dewan, and Brian Stelter, and written by Stolberg, the Times chose to blame a cabal of “right-wing Web sites” and Fox News for fostering the Sherrod scandal which led to her dismissal. As if Fox forced Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to do its right-wing bidding without every actually running a single story on Sherrod until after her firing, when the point became moot.

NBC was on the same bandwagon...but, oh no, the mainstream media WOULD NEVER COORDINATE! Oh my goodness golly, no!

NBC's Today Show Inaccurately Blames Fox News for Sherrod Firing

On Wednesday's Today show, Matt Lauer, Ann Curry and Savannah Guthrie left the impression that Fox News's criticism of Shirley Sherrod was the reason she lost her job at the Agriculture Department, with Lauer, in his interview with Sherrod, charging: "I don't know who to blame here, Miss Sherrod. I mean the, the, the activist who put forward this garbage in the first place has an agenda. We shouldn't be surprised by that. The cable news network that, that played this garbage on and on and talked about it, has an agenda. We shouldn't be surprised by that." But Lauer and NBC News, itself, revealed they have their own agenda, by failing to report, as the MRC's Rich Noyes pointed out, that Fox News didn't mention the Sherrod story until she had already left her job.

However, that didn't stop Curry from claiming, in the 8am half hour news brief, that: "After the video was used to vilify her on Fox television, she lost her job," and Guthrie advancing the NAACP's notion, in her piece, that they had been "snookered" by Fox News.

Flail, flail, flail.

Meanwhile, we won't see much about this in the news unless Sarah Palin weighs in:

Obama Administration’s Actions in Auto Bailout Added to Unemployment, Audit Says

Liberal Media Coordination Being Exposed

This onion is still being peeled, but our eyes are already watering from the stink. That stench is the long-denied 'collaboration' between liberal media members as to talking points, lines of attack, and coverage.

JournoList Revelations Suggest Founder Ezra Klein Not Accurate in Defenses of Liberal Group

The more details emerge about the liberal media listserv JournoList, the more it resembles the cabal of leftist message-coordination many conservatives feared. Though perhaps not the "vast left-wing media conspiracy" Fred Barnes proclaims, evidence points to concerted efforts to coordinate talking points, and now, to direct links between the Obama White House and JournoList members.

Ironically, those are two elements of the listserv of which creator Ezra Klein explicity claimed JournoList was completely devoid. "Is it an ornate temple where liberals get together to work out "talking points?" Of course not," Klein stated last year. He added, "There are no government or campaign employees on the list."

Both of those assertions are provably false (whether or not they were at the time). The former has been contradicted by a number of instances of JournoList members doing just that: coordinating talking points. The second claim is upended by recent revelations that Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's chief economic advisor, and unpaid "surrogate" adviser to the Obama campaign, was a member of JournoList while advising then-candidate Obama on economic issues...

Bottom line: a campaign adviser was able to sit in on discussions about how best to hone the message against Republicans. And contrary to another one of Klein's claims, talking points were in fact discussed in the JournoList forum.

Spencer Ackerman encouraging his fellow JournoListers to choose an Obama critic, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists," Michael Tomsky telling his colleagues, "we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy [the Rev. Wright scandal] in whatever venues we have" - listserv members collaborated to kill stories by sharing lines of attack.

The list's members brought their journalistic collaboration to the next level after Palin was nominated. Academic Daniel Levy could not have made JournoList's talking-point-formation role any clearer:

This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia [sic] wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].

Jared Bernstein was privy to this message and to the entire back and forth concerning how best to collectively address Palin's nomination.

And sure enough, we see remarkably similar talking points show up in a Huffington Post piece written by Bernstein in October 2008: Palin as "a newcomer on the national scene with scant governing experience, little knowledge of the major issues, and few deeply held views … [and] unfettered, thin, talking points." You know, unlike Obama, with his swathes of executive experience (less than Palin) and concrete, substantive policy positions (Hope and Change).

In fact, message-coordination went far further than just discussing how best to frame an issue. For instance, Time columnist Joe Klein told his colleagues in one email that he had worked their suggestions into his latest column. As Ed Morrissey notes, Klein "represented those opinions as his own — and one has to wonder how many other talking points from JournoList Klein passed off as his own over the years at Time."...

But the real issue is not whether Klein was being honest with his readers when he made the above assertions. More important is the fact that the accusations about JournoList Klein was trying to fend off were not at all off-base. The listserv has acted as a forum to coordinate talking points, and included at least one member of a presidential campaign, who later, as a top White House adviser, invited the upper crust of liberal bloggers to the White House for an exclusive meeting.

I think we can expect an 'internal investigation' by this group of journalists and journalism hangers-on (for what it's worth, not a single black person has been identified as belonging to this group) where they will clear themselves of all wrongdoing or impropriety. Or they'll go off to 'treatment' for a weekend and come back tearful, apologetic, and 'cured' of their liberal media bias.

editoriaLIES

After quite a nice period of relative calm...look out! Here comes the Gazette!

7-22-10
Extended benefits at last

The GOP's lockstep vote in June against extending unemployment benefits not only was mindless but heartless.

Mindless? I don't think so, but I guess it could be considered 'opinion'. As for heartless...well, that's another matter. Putting the needs of hundreds of millions ahead of a few million is far from heartless. Indeed, it is the opposite of heartless. I would also consider it the exact opposite of mindless now that you mention it. Regardless, this goes over the line from opinion to lie. Lie #1. The GOP clearly is misrepresented here given that their only opposition to extended benefits was how to pay for them, not whether they should be granted. Simply being against them for no reason would truthfully be heartless. That is not the case here as any reasonable person can see.

It was done without serious thought or principle, and clearly without social compassion

This has been going on since last year. To say that it was done without thought (while at the same time portraying it as some sort of pre-meditated act of aggression against the unemployed) is foolish at best. As for principle, I would point to the words of none other than Barack mmm mmm mmm Hussein mmm mmm mmm Obama:

But Republicans were quick to remind Mr. Obama what he said after signing a previous extension of unemployment benefits on November 6th of last year.

“Now, it’s important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible,” he said.

Without principle? Hardly. The GOP is simply trying to maintain the same level of adherence to principles that Obama displayed last year and which he has now turned his back upon. Sorry, Lie #2. Any normal human being would see that proclaiming the importance of a principle and then turning your back on it would be the lack of principles, not proclaiming the importance of a principle and then actually carrying through on it. And, as for social compassion. I again have to ring them up for Lie #3. Again, trying to do what is right for hundreds of millions does not demonstrate a lack of compassion. This is not opinion being spouted by the Gazette, it is ignorant, incorrect, malicious propaganda.

part of a strategy of obstructionism to deny President Obama and the Democrats any accomplishments or victories before the upcoming mid-term elections.

Lie #4. What would be a better gift to hand the Democrats before the fall elections? Let's say that both gifts are extended unemployment benefits. But let's say that one of them adds to the deficit that is already troubling to the majority of Americans, the other is 'paid for'. Is it not true, to the most partisan of partisans, that a 'paid for' extension would be more welcome to the country than tens of billions more in debt? Yet that is exactly what the GOP strove to make Obama and the Democrats pass, what would have been a far greater "accomplishment or victory" than what they got.

And the 2.5 million unemployed who were denied the average payment of $309 per week, needed to pay the rent and put food on the table for their families, were the innocent victims.

Instead the hundreds of millions of taxpayers responsible for yet more debt are the "innocent victims" in this Democrat "victory".

This week's passage of legislation extending benefits beyond 26 weeks, thanks to the defection of the two moderate Republican senators from Maine and the quick replacement of the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, shouldn't make people forget what the GOP did -- or, more precisely, wouldn't do.

Well, they "wouldn't" vote to burden the hundreds of millions of us paying taxes with yet more debt. In case the Gazette is the only media outlet in the nation that has failed to notice, people are pretty much fed up with the Democrat debt party and yet more spending of money we don't have. Oh, and I fail to see any mention of the "moderate" Democrat that voted against the measure. What about him?

The army of unemployed that the Republicans care so little about were actually twice victimized.

Sorry, Lie #5. The GOP has tried time and again to introduce measures that both extend benefits and do not incur more debt, just as Obama claimed was the right thing to do last year. And which party wants to put these people back to work instead of giving them more handouts? Here's a hint, it's not the Democrats. This goes well beyond honest opinion and is, again, nothing but partisan propaganda that is not factually based. The stack of bills that the GOP tried to introduce to pay for this measure and extend benefits proves it is a lie.

Most are out of work through no fault of their own, casualties of the banking debacle brought about by a combination of corporate greed and lax financial regulation that Republicans encouraged and celebrated (and Democrats tolerated as long as the economy was humming and the stock market was rising).

I'm not going here. Suffice it to say this is Lie #6. Blaming the 10% unemployment rate on the GOP? You've got to be (expletive deleted) kidding me, right? Get over it, Gazette, even the more sane members of the press are admitting that it was lax housing standards encouraged by the Democrats that caused this. And Lie #7 is that crack about 'lax financial regulation'. You will kindly recall, factually, that it was, factually, Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain, factually, who, factually, tried to increase financial oversight on the housing industry, factually, while the Democrats held both houses and stymied, factually, any effort to look into the superheated housing industry. Factually. You will, factually, find quotes from the noble Democrats Dodd and Frank, factually, claiming that there was nothing wrong with the housing market and anyone that said there was was a liar.

But they have made no similar proposal when it comes to the tax cuts for the wealthy that they recommend -- which would cost about 20 times as much as the extended unemployment benefits.

Lie #8. No matter how many times you repeat it, it does not make it true. The tax cuts increased federal tax revenue, it did not and does not and will not "cost" anything to cut taxes. My money and your money does not belong to the federal government. By taking less of my money and your money, that is not the same as the federal government giving me and you money. Repeat it all you want, it will not make it come true. It never has.

Nor did they when President Bush gave $180 billion to AIG or the Federal Reserve bought up $1.2 trillion in toxic debt obligations in a handout to the bankers who devised and sold them, or for the rest of the financial bailout that has cost trillions in taxpayer debt.

Lie #9. Nearly all the money 'given' to banks (some at 'gunpoint', so to speak) has been repaid, indeed netting a small profit for the federal government. This "trillions in taxpayer debt", I don't even know where they got that from, unless they are blaming the entire federal debt on Bush. And I think you'll find that the GOP largely was against the wasteful stimulus...indeed I'm positive this was the case. In fact, that's Lie #10. They're really on a roll, here. Did Carl "the bigot" Strock write this?

The GOP's scorched-earth policy

Again, the GOP tried to hand the Democrats a gift tied up with a ribbon on a silver platter and had it thrown back in their fact. Lie #11.

But the Democrats have every right to remind the unemployed, and all who have compassion for them, what the Republicans were prepared to do for them: nothing.

And, finally, Lie #12. Quite a tally. Again, the GOP tried over and over and over again to pass funded extensions. Who was it that refused to vote for funded extensions? The Democrats. Who was it that went on vacation instead of voting on extending benefits before, despite having the votes to pass it? The Democrats. Who's "scorched earth policy" is it to demonize the GOP for having the guts to stick to the principles that Obama has turned his back on? Yup, the Democrats.

12 (bleeping) lies. Way lame, junior.

Brooklyn Census Office Caught Faking Info

Census Officials in New York Instructed Workers to Falsify Questionnaires, Says Inspector General

The Commerce Department’s Inspector General (IG) has confirmed whistleblower allegations that management at a local Census office in Brooklyn, N.Y., “directed employees to falsify Census questionnaires during” the decennial count’s largest and most expensive operation known as Non-response Follow-Up.

Furthermore, the IG noted that during the Census Bureau’s efforts to re-count the fabricated questionnaires, employees charged with that task “were inferring the number of household residents through improper means.”...

“We became aware of the allegations concerning the Brooklyn Northeast LCO [local Census office] on June 14, 2010, when our hotline center received two e-mailed complaints alleging improprieties by the LCO manager and assistant manager for field operations,” testified Zinser.

“Our hotline center received a third e-mail on June 16, repeating the same allegations as the earlier complaints, but also indicating that an LCO operations supervisor resigned rather than comply with the managers’ orders,” he later added.

According to the IG, the assistant manager for field operations and two office clerks, between June 9 and 11, printed out an estimated “1,000 blank questionnaires” from a commercial Internet database used by the Census.

The Internet database known as FastData, which should have been restricted to the assistant manager, was used to forge Census questionnaires used to count households.

“On June 12 and 13… [Brooklyn Northeast office] manager instructed two clerks to fill out the questionnaires using the supplied FastData printouts, and, in the sections that were not covered by the FastData information, to falsely record that the resident had refused to respond. Finally, these two clerks relayed the [local Census office] manager’s instructions to other clerks in the office, who in turn completed questionnaires in the same improper manner,” added Zinser.

The commerce IG pointed out that according to early media accounts of the situation “there were approximately 10,000 cases of potential falsification.”

“However, this was Census’s rough estimate given the information available at the time. Our current understanding, from Census’s analysis of the incident, is that 4,221 household records required re-enumeration as a result of the whistleblower allegations,” stated the Commerce IG.

The IG pointed out that there is no evidence to suggest that the local office manager and the assistant manager were instructed to “take this improper action” by headquarters or the regional Census center in charge of the Brooklyn Northeast office.

Investment Failure

Larry Kudlow has a good column that dovetails quite well with my recent post: Economics By Dummies

Business Knows More than Obama. He Should Follow Their Roadmap.

But uncertainty over the regulatory-and-tax rules of the road is exactly what has buffaloed business and stifled the animal spirits that are so necessary for investment and job creation...

The fact is, major corporations are sitting on a near $2 trillion cash hoard that along with rising profits could become the greatest private-sector stimulus plan ever. Banks are also stockpiling cash -- about $1 trillion in excess reserves that could finance the greatest job-creation program in history. Three trillion dollars of private money dwarfs the piddling $50 billion in deficit-creating taxpayer money being debated on in Congress.

But all business is asking for is some clarity and certainty regarding government intentions, especially on taxes and regulation. Take, for example, the new 2,300-page bank-regulation bill, which spreads 243 new regulatory provisions across ten agencies. No one really knows what’s in this document, or what the unintended consequences will be. Until people figure this out, it could freeze bank lending for years.

The Obamacare health bill similarly includes tax hikes and regulatory overreach that not only adds to business hiring costs but could put a freeze on the expansion of one of America’s most vibrant private-sector industries. Meanwhile, threats of EPA carbon regulations only add to the cost burden for business...

The best thing to come out of the administration this summer was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s pledge to me in a CNBC interview to place a 20-20 limit on tax rates for investor capital gains and dividends. No one, most of all me, wants to see any increase in these tax rates. But at least the Geithner pledge means investment tax rates will stay low. The stock market took a turn for the better right after the interview.

The moral of the story? Federal taxes and regulations matter. Instead of demonizing business, Obama and his crowd should start listening and acting on the recommendations of our business leaders. Most of these people are not politically partisan. They’re trying to do good for the economy and the country.

Frankly, they know more about this than the president does.

Press Has To Admit Last Jobless Report A Fluke

They tried to be all casual about the initial jobless report last period, so they wouldn't get burned...but they still managed to play up how it could mean things were improving. But they just shot up again and the backpedaling has begun:

Seasonal factors boosted new requests for unemployment benefits last week as the job market remains weak amid a slow economic recovery...

The sharp increase comes after claims fell steeply two weeks ago to their lowest level since August 2008. But much of that drop was driven by temporary seasonal factors and not an improving job market.

The economy will not rebound until businesses start hiring and businesses will not start hiring until Obama takes his neck of their throat, in his parlance. It really is that simple.

DOJ Fails Two Tests

Under Obama's political appointees at DOJ, zero time was spent going after black agitators caught on video dressed in military-style garb with weapons intimidating white voters at a polling station on election day.

But 2 years were spent investigating the Bush administration for the firing of political appointees. Only to find that, despite their best efforts, they couldn't find any actual wrongdoing.

Prosecutors have concluded their two-year investigation into the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and will file no charges, the Justice Department said Wednesday...

"Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias," the Justice Department said in a letter to lawmakers Wednesday. "The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."

Prosecutors also said there was insufficient evidence to charge someone with lying to Congress or investigators.

The Democrats are scared carpless that the Republicans will be taking over in January...with the investigatory and subpoena power that comes with it. Recall the right's outrage that the Democrats spent two years investigating Bush once they took over in 2007...only to come up with squat. I guarantee they're not comfortably concluding that Darrell Issa will come up empty-handed.

-

For proper context, recall that the voter intimidation was case was begun under Bush and dropped as soon as possible under Obama. The investigation into the USA firings was also begun under Bush, except it then went on for another year and a half under Obama...so this is, indeed, apples to apples.

Hint: It's Not Bush's Fault

So, despite more fair earnings reports, the market tumbled again, today. Reuters, without time to editorialize, yet, sends out this decent story (note that it might have been edited by now, already): Market slides after Bernanke testimony

U.S. stocks fell on Wednesday as investors were discouraged after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the U.S. economy faces "unusually uncertain" prospects.

In remarks to the Senate Banking Committee, Bernanke said the Fed was ready to take further steps to bolster growth if needed, adding to investor worries about a sluggish recovery from recession.

"To some degree, any type of (Fed) aid would be a strong signal that things are worse than what we think," said Nick Kalivas, senior equity index analyst at MF Global in Chicago...

Just a hint to the haters, continued uncertainty and despair a full year and a half after he left office is not the fault of George Bush. There wasn't this much fear in the economy this long after 9-11. Oh, and traders cheered Bush whenever he showed up to talk to them about the economy, so it's not likely that they're now (still?) bummed about what he was doing, now is it? No. In fact that makes zero sense...maybe less than zero.

As I have said on numerous occasions, the problem is UNCERTAINTY, investors ('the rich') don't know what new tax is coming, what new slapdown, what new attack by this administration. As a result, they sit on their money and unemployment is still 10%. Going Galt, you might say...

How Many Democrats?

Well, the vote is up: link

The press would do well, en masse, to read it carefully.

The measure passed 60-40.

Two RINOs voted for it, Collins and Snowe (of course). One Democrat voted against (Nelson).

So let's pull out our supercomputers, shall we, press? If the RINOs had voted against it, it would have been 58-42. If Nelson had voted for it, it would have been 59-41...because there are 41 Republicans and RINOs and only 59 Democrats.

Unlike hanging chads, no matter how many times you count them you still get 41 Republicans and no matter how many Democrats you replace with Democrats, you can't pass anything that the Republicans filibuster, and this was not filibustered.

Clueless

Update: Cluelessness continues: 60 votes in place, Dems ready to extend jobs money

With Goodwin, the Senate breakdown is 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans and two independents who normally vote with the Democrats.

In other words...to the AP: 57+2=60.

Let's fix that headline - 'With only 59 votes, Dems need GOP help to extend jobs money without paying for it'

Geniuses.

The Senate is set to take up the measure again Tuesday, immediately following the swearing in of a replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd. Filling that seat will give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block a Republican filibuster.

Uhhh....the Democrats have 59 seats. This story, as of posting, has been up 49 minutes without anyone at the AP noticing their wishful thinking.
==

Tuesday UPDATE

In what can only be termed a jaw dropping display of idiocy, the press CONTINUES to leave uncorrected stories claiming that the temporary Byrd replacement will give the Democrats their desired 60th vote.

Except that there are STILL 41 Republican Senators, no matter how many times you count them. If you must count for yourself, go to the Republican Senate Caucus' page here: link. 41 Republicans. For those educated in public schools, there are 100 US Senators. There are 41 Republicans. 100-41=59 no matter what kind of 'new math' you use. As much as the media and Obama would LOVE to discover a way to replace a Democrat with a Democrat and end up with one more Democrat than they started with, it just ain't happening.

I actually heard this stupidity repeated on 810 this morning in the Fox New update, just proving that, while Fox News is more balanced, it doesn't seem to be much smarter.

I mean seriously, can you believe how quickly these people forgot about Scott Brown, the whole 41st Republican vote thing? But you drop a Democrat, replace him with a Democrat, and VOILA! somehow the Democrats have 60 members in their caucus. Amazing.

Amazingly stupid.

NYT Admits That The Rich Need Stimulus Cash, Don't Like It

Well, this is an odd conclusion...for the New York Times, anyway. They've managed to come to a partially correct realization - that those liberal bogeymen (even when they fit the mold themselves) 'the rich', need stimulus to keep the whole economy going.

There is a definite bewilderment in this story - the inability to grasp the meaning of what they are saying and the refusal to accept what they see before their eyes.

Let's explain: Wealthy Reduce Buying in a Blow to the Recovery

The economic recovery has been helped in large part by the spending of the most affluent. Now, even the rich appear to be tightening their belts...

“One of the reasons that the recovery has lost momentum is that high-end consumers have become more jittery and more cautious,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics.

First, the article goes on to wonder about the possible causes for this belt-tightening, but nowhere do they manage to hit the nail instead of their thumb - taxes. Nowhere do they manage to see that 'the rich' might be cutting back on spending because they see massive tax hikes coming in about 6 months as well as numerous threats from Obey-Won and the Debt-i Knights to add even more taxes to the ones they know are coming.

Even Federal Reserve policy makers have acknowledged that the recovery is losing steam and suggested that should conditions worsen further, additional stimulus may be needed, according to minutes of their last meeting, released on Wednesday...

But the Top 5 percent in income earners — those households earning $210,000 or more — account for about one-third of consumer outlays, including spending on goods and services, interest payments on consumer debt and cash gifts, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by Moody’s Analytics. That means the purchasing decisions of the rich have an outsize effect on economic data. According to Gallup, spending by upper-income consumers — defined as those earning $90,000 or more — surged to an average of $145 a day in May, up 33 percent from a year earlier.

Now most people, I would say a majority of Americans, can get to point B from point A at this stage. Let's see...'the rich', a mere 5% of earners, spend a WHOPPING 1/3 of all the money that itself makes up 60% of our economy. Yet, for the blind leading the sighted, the conclusion is that the government should simply TAKE MORE MONEY from 'the rich' to give to the poor - the 95% that only account for 66% of the spending. Common sense, given these 'hand in front of your face' facts, would conclude that the CORRECT solution is to 'stimulate' just a few people, the 5% that on their own drive 1/3 of 6/10 of the entire country's economy. This is commonly known as 'getting the most bang for your buck'. The same way that you never get a job from a poor person, you're not going to stimulate the ponderous economy by taking money away from those that already do it well and giving it to those that do it less well.

Who's John Galt?

To the extent that the wariness of the affluent is driven mainly by nerves and sentiment, economists hope that it will be temporary. “If growth is actually solid, those fears will dissipate,” said Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays Capital and a former senior economist at the Federal Reserve Board.

These are the people that should NOT be running our government. Let me restate this genius' point for you: If the rich start spending money and get the economy moving, then the rich will be motivated to start spending money.

Make sense? Riiiiiiight. Let me explain something to Mr. Wizard here...'the rich' are worried about TAXES, which will only get WORSE the more they make (which will happen if they stimulate the economy by spending), so what you are saying makes zero sense. You are saying that if they start spending and there is growth, then they will not be scared any more and will start spending. And they PAY this guy.

The worry, of course, is that consumers will stop spending because of their concerns about a slowdown, and that economic growth will slow because consumers have stopped spending.

Also known as: DUH! And who have you JUST SAID is the most effective spender? 'The rich'...who are not going to be moved by someone making $25,000 a year buying a new pair of Reeboks.

Job losses have disproportionately hit those at the lower end of the wage scale. According to the Labor Department, the unemployment rate among people in management, business or financial occupations was 4.8 percent in June, compared to 9.5 percent over all, 18.2 percent in construction and 12.1 percent in production.

As a result, the affluent generally maintained their spending power at a time when others were losing it. “High-income households drove the economy out of recession into recovery and powered the recovery through its first year,” Mr. Zandi concluded.

Now what does a normal human being, as opposed to a leftist, conclude from the preceding statements? Let's recap - 'the rich' didn't get laid off, because they kept working, they were responsible for the recovery. What's missing here? Hello? STIMULUS WASTE PORKULUS! Isn't this very paper and damned near every other media outlet trumpeting the nonsensical claim by Obama that the 'stimulus' is responsible for the 'recovery'? Yet they can point to nothing to prove it. And even with common sense evidence for the reason (one of them) for the modest recovery, it doesn't sink in.

Other economists suggest that while Mr. Zandi’s conclusions make some sense, the data is hazy on the precise role that the rich have played in consumer spending. “We have tried to do other things like look at consumer expenditures on products mainly purchased by the rich and could never get anywhere,” said Barry P. Bosworth, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Really? A liberal think tank that can't draw obvious conclusions that go ahead their leftwing beliefs? Shocking! Meanwhile, in the real world:

On the ground, those whose sales depend on affluent buyers have seen definite patterns.

And, of course, let's trot out a leftist who explains why common sense doesn't enter into their thinking:

Sam Pizzigati, associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning research center, cautions against simply boosting the spending power of the rich through tax cuts or other measures. “Otherwise, we find ourselves in an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ world,” he said, “and the solution to the hard times that the economy is going through is to help the people that are not going through hard times.”

Get it? Despite the fact that they have just finished explaining that 'the rich' are the most effective spenders and stimulators of the economy, we cannot do anything to stimulate THEM, screw the fact that by failing to stimulate the few that then stimulate the many, thereby screwing over EVERYONE with more stimulus fails, we should instead pretend to stimulate the few so as to not risk ALSO stimulating the bogeyman.

Do you grasp how utterly demented this thinking it? What utter lunacy is driving the people driving this nation into the ground - for surely this is the kind of thinking going on in DC. We MUST NOT help the rich, EVEN IF IT MEANS HURTING THE POOR. It is MORE IMPORTANT TO PUNISH THE RICH THAN HELP THE POOR. How effing sick is that? They think it is more important to keep 'the rich' from earning a few dollars more, even if it means 'the rich' keep refusing to spend, refusing to hire. These people would rather see 17% un- and underemployment than see 'the rich' benefit from a recovery. Make no mistake - that is what is being said here. Look who got the last word in this article? That guy.

And that is why they must be thrown the hell out in November and why the big cheese must be send back to Chicago in 2013, this sort of thinking is destroying America and taking the world down with it.

Palestinians are known for 'loving death more than Israelis love life'...

The left in America has become so socialist they love hurting the rich more than they love helping the poor. They would rather see 'the man' hurt by a closing business than see him profit by his business succeeding...even though the closing will send a hundred poor and middle class workers to the unemployment line. They would rather that than see those workers gainfully employed, spending, saving, living, laughing, getting richer if it means seeing the owner make more than "enough" money.

That sickness has to be cured in November.

Do As Obama Says, Not As Obama Does

Show us what leadership looks like, Obey-Won!

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say "OK"... That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

You tell 'em!

Oops:

Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.; and the president's personal aide Reggie Love, who chatted with Baldacci.

Dipstick.

Right Right, Left Wrong. Again.

(UPDATED)

Let's see...when the right was exclaiming that ObamaCare would allow the federal government to use our tax money to pay for abortions the left, led by the media naturally, loudly proclaimed 'pish tosh, the President, who is black, signed an EXECUTIVE ORDER! that prohibited federal funding of abortions'. It was good enough for Bart Stupak and his bunch of ex-pro-lifers to sign off on ObamaCare and allow it to pass.

Gee, shall we all act surprised now that the White House has approved taxpayer funding of abortions via ObamaCare? Congratulations, Mr. Stupak, you built a career that included a principled pro-life stance and now you have ended that career and will only be remembered for being the man that actually made federal funding of abortions possible. You have to admit, not many 'pro-lifers' can make that claim! Tipoff via Kim at Wizbang:

The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide...

"President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention," Johnson said.

The abortion funding comes despite language in the bill that some pro-abortion Democrats and Obama himself claimed would prevent abortion funding and despite a controversial executive order Obama signed supposedly stopping abortion funding...

Proving the point further that the abortion funding comes from federal taxpayer dollars, Johnson explained that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has emphasized that the high-risk pool program is a federal program and that the states will not incur any cost.

You might recall an awful lot of stories with statements from Democrat liars like this:

In a press conference today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied the abortion funding in the Senate health care bill for the third time in the last seven days. Reacting to a promise from pro-life Democrats to kill the bill over the massive abortion funding it contains, Pelosi essentially called them liars...

Pelosi got exasperated when a reporter asked at her weekly press conference about their unwillingness to support the bill over abortion.

“Let me say this: This is not about abortion! This is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” she said, according to Politico...

“Let me say it clearly: we all agree on the three following things. … One is there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill. There is no change in the access to abortion. No more or no less: It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access. And, third, we want to pass a health care bill," she said...

We'll take our apology now, witch.

--

UPDATE: Having been caught in the act, the government is temporarily keeping states from using federal money to pay for abortions. Bart Stupak, beclowned by Obama and Pelosi, claims victory, further reddening his nose and embiggifying his floppy shoes:

The issue flared after at least one state — New Mexico — initially decided to allow coverage of elective abortion in a newly launched, federally funded program to provide coverage for high-risk uninsured people turned away by private carriers.

Abortion foes also raised questions about Pennsylvania's plan, but state officials said the criticism was baseless.

...the Health and Human Services Department announced last week the program will not cover abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger...

(1)That's a more restrictive policy than will be generally applied under Obama's new health care law.

Starting in 2014, the overhaul will allow federally subsidized health insurance plans to cover abortions, but only if policyholders pay for coverage separately and the money is segregated from government funds...

"We didn't expect that women would be treated differently here with regard to the high-risk insurance pool," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-choice America. "This is inexplicable and wrongheaded to us, and it puts women's lives in jeopardy."

The turnabout comes amid growing recognition among Democrats that the nation's unsettled political climate could cost them control of the House...

"New Mexico is an example of where the executive order actually worked," Stupak said, referring to that state's reversal on allowing coverage of elective abortion...

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, acknowledged that his side had won a round.

"If they now do what they say they are going to do, that would be good," Johnson said of the Obama administration. "But in our view they are doing it because the spotlight has been put on them and we blew the whistle."

Proof that Obama and his Debt-i Knights never actually planned to forbid taxpayer-funded abortions? The outraged reaction by pro-abortion groups that are shocked that taxpayer money won't be funding abortions at the moment. If they were given the slightest hint by Obama that his "executive order" would ever restrict a single taxpayer-funded abortion they wouldn't now be acting outraged and surprised. And, of course, their claim that womens' lives would be at risk as a result is nothing but foolishness, since they're EXPLICITLY stating that risk to life is one of the exceptions (to the mother, not the baby). Pure propaganda, but it's the only arrow in their quiver so they keep shooting it.

More evidence that this was never meant to stop abortions - the fact that AP acknowledges that this actual implementation of a policy to not fund abortions with taxpayer money is a "turnaround".

Also, the acknowledgment that the change in NM is a "reversal", indicating that they never had any plans to offer taxpayer money for abortions and never expected Obama or Congress to forbid it.

(1) You'll note that I did say "temporarily", as this AP article makes clear that ObamaCare will provide elective taxpayer-funded abortions. The "segregated funds" thing is a red herring and always was.

Your Random Saturday

Hot enough for ya? Yeesh. The garden's loving the weather, though.

Thomas Sowell:

People who remember the old comic strip "Peanuts" will recall an often repeated situation where Lucy offers to hold a football for Charlie Brown to kick. Then, as Charlie coming running up to kick it, Lucy snatches away the ball and Charlie Brown loses his balance and goes crashing on his backside.

The reason this same scene remained funny, despite how often it was repeated, is that in the later repetitions Charlie Brown would express suspicion at Lucy, recalling how she had tricked him before. She would then come up with some claim that she wasn't going to do that any more-- and of course she did.

There is a similar routine that has been repeated many times in Washington, over the years, with the Democrats playing Lucy and Republicans playing Charlie Brown...

Why Republicans join such transparent attempts to rescue the Democrats from the political consequences of their own actions is one of the many unsolved mysteries of human nature in general and the Republican Party in particular...

Republicans are not the only suckers in this game. The voting public's willingness to believe fancy rhetoric and ignore hard facts is a crucial part of this scam.

When the Obama administration said that it could provide health insurance to millions of additional people without increasing the national debt, shouldn't common sense have told you that somebody was just insulting your intelligence?

When the two thousand page bill was rushed through Congress too fast for anybody to read it, shouldn't that have made you realize that you were being played for a sucker?

When this bill that was passed with lightning speed was scheduled to take effect only after the 2012 election, didn't that suggest that they didn't want you to find out how it works in practice in time to turn against Obama when he is up for reelection?

If Only Educators Would Stand Up

I guess I need to correct that...if only educators were themselves educated and weren't typically leftwing activists...how 'bout that? You've probably noticed that little triggers a good rant than poor education here at AMB. I believe, quite firmly, that it is the root cause of the downfall of America. But I'm not going into that again right now. And sometimes I start to feel like the people that rail against 'muslims' when what they mean are 'extremist murderous neanderthalic terrorist muslims'. Not all muslims are terrorists... we know, we know. Not all muslims are American-hating terrorists. Not all teachers are poorly educated American-hating hacks. We get it. I get it. I have the same answer...if that's the case, if, as they say, that's just a small minority...then where the hell is the majority? Stand up, let's hear you. When someone that's supposed to be a conservative does anything improper the first thing the press does is run around and demand that all conservatives condemn them. Well, why doesn't the press run first to muslims after a terrorist act by a muslim (and we've had plenty in the past few years right here in the US) so they can stand up and condemn it? Because they won't? If what is happening/has happened in our public schools is the act of a minority, then why isn't the majority standing up and changing things? What was it, Guilderland or something where some teachers were canned a year ago, seemingly because one didn't toe the liberal line and the 2nd was on his side? If poorly education liberal activists are the minority and not the norm in American education today...stand up and prove it, teachers...whose going to pay you when the private sector is killed by socialists? Ever think of that?

Dennis Prager:

If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place.

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity...

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans...

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself...

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school...

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend...

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda...

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

Not-So-Elite

I don't consider myself an elitist...that is, I don't consider myself somehow 'special' compared to other people, I don't think that there is some inherent reason my ideas should be the way things are (which does nothing to dampen my enthusiasm for trying to prove to others that my ideas are correct since they are what I believe)...and I don't think that we are better off by being led by 'our betters'.

That said, I do think that we are better off not being represented by utter and complete morons that are clueless to history, geography, reality, and their own cluelessness:

Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee — who once famously asked where she could find photos of the American flag that Neil Armstrong planted on Mars — yesterday insisted, in stark defiance of basic facts of history, that “today we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace.”

We may not need to be led by the 'best and brightest', but can we at least not be led by the dimmest?

Jackson Lee had previously referred to “countries like Europe.” Wait, it was President Obama who said that — nevermind.

Anybody taking a vacation this summer? Maybe to North Louisiana or West Colorado? I hear the salmon run up the Nile in New Tennessee is not to be missed.

But you know what's worse? People willingly chose her to represent them to all of America.