SCOTUS Watch

The Media Research Center has just released a comprehensive report detailing the blatantly slanted reporting on Supreme Court nominees by the New York Times. It easily and effortlessly tracks with the biases I've been exposing in the local NYT wannabes, the TU and Gazette, particularly the easily identified and revealing labeling biases.

Oh, and, uh...sorry, but I do still have the Kagan papers and will be finishing the roundup of her coverage. I ask for forgiveness for my tardiness, other things intruded and, well, the whole process of adding an inexperienced, incompetent, unqualified member of the Supreme Court by an inexperienced, incompetent, and unqualified president was just making me nauseous and soulsick for our children's future, a future for the next 40 years likely including a Supreme Court justice that believes our forefather's Constitution allows the government to censor speech it does not like, including burning books it does not like. Still, I'll get around to wading through the filth once I get a new clothespin for my nose.

Someone Get Me The Eagles

So...

The geniuses that Obama brought in to run his economic policy, Summers and Romer, two once-respected economic thinkers that threw their learning out the window to be yes-men to a socialist community organizers with no economic background, knowledge, or understanding, have thrown in the towel. The pressure on the third leg of the wobbly stool, Geithner, to quit or be fired grows daily.

The economy is in shambles and all economists that bother to be honest disagree with mmm mmm mmm and his zombies moaning on about eat brains! 'recovery summer! upswing! things are improving!' and realize that things show no sign of picking up until the socialists are replaced and their damage reversed. McDonalds has had to issue a statement saying they weren't going to have to cut their health insurance option for hourly employees because of mmm mmm mmm ObamaCare - but regardless of where the story originated, it quickly spread and was believed because it was so believable, plausible, and, despite their denials, probable.

Afghanistan is going so badly that the press won't even talk about it anymore (unlike with Iraq under Bush when they only shut up when things were going well) except to fret about how the evil military won't let openly gay members serve there. Pakistan is reverting back to the hostile stance they held towards us before Bush won them over - way to go, foreign policy experts Obama and Hillary!

Hand-picked supporters are turning on mmm mmm mmm at what were supposed to be smiley photo-ops showing that everyone still loves mmm mmm mmm and should just do what he says.

Politically, mmm mmm mmm continues to demonstrate how inexperienced, incapable, out-of-touch, and unstable he is as she shows up at rallies and, instead of inspiring the people that still like him, he yells at them, insults their intelligence, and tells them that they're not doing a good enough job supporting him.

A pile of Democrats in the House are revolting (insert giggle here) against Pelosi and demanding that taxes not be allowed to go up during a recession/economically-troubled period. Pelosi runs away.

Rahm is about to flee for Chicago so he can stop pretending, badly, to not be a degenerate, backstabbing, manipulative pol.

Hey, the federal response to that whole Gulf thing went fabulously, didn't it? Hmmm...funny, when Katrina hit the local and state responses were horrible in many places while the federal response was a lifesaver, but this time the local and state responses were brisk and full steam ahead while the federal response was, frankly, ridiculous.

There's only one way to keep such a White House crisis from going to waste...

it's time for Obama to have another rousing, private rock concert and get away from these damned little people that won't do what he says and shut the hell up while they're doing it.

A Fight Too Far

I would hardly call myself a Paladino supporter...in fact at this point I suspect I'll be NV'ing the guv line in a month (I'm not about to support the Spitzer-wannabe that directly helped cause the current economic state of the union) or may go Libertarian...

that said, the headlines and hype about Paladino "fighting" with a reporter and 'CAUGHT ON TAPE!' are ridiculous. Shouting back and forth is not "fighting". Everything I've seen so far and saw on TV was about "fighting" and "physically restrained" and "before they could come to blows"...

gimme a freakin' break, guys. You hate Paladino. We get it. You're worried because your boy isn't buying him in the polls. We get it. But this is pathetic.

Look at Fox23 as an example. Blazing red headline: News Alert: Video released: Paladino fights with reporter

Story headline: Video released: Paladino fights with reporter

Actual content of story?

Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino and New York Post state editor Fred Dicker got into a heated exchange...

How do they go on to hype this non-event?

Paladino's aides separated him from the fight...

At least it ends with a laugh:

Dicker denied that he's a biased reporter...

Ba-dum-dumb.

Tax Revenue Myths Debunked By The Left

One of the most beloved myths of the left is that raising taxes raises tax revenues and cutting taxes (that is "spending for tax cuts" to them) decreases them.

So it is with a particularly warm and fuzzy feeling that the right, which is right, is able to point to an instance when a card carrying leftist, beloved member of the left's propaganda machine openly admits the truth as Charles Gibson did when interviewing mmm Obama mmm during the '08 campaign:

Here, for example, is the exchange between candidate Obama and moderator Charlie Gibson during a presidential debate regarding Obama's proposal to increase the tax on capital gains from 15% to 28%.

"In each instance when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased — the government took in more money," said Gibson. "And in the 1980s when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

And, of course, the icing on this particular cake is Obama mmm's response where he admits, openly even for him, to being a socialist:

Replied Obama, "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Ethics Check - The Good And The Bad

First, let me say right off that I'm glad to see this getting play. Also, I'm surprised and gladdened to see such a thing 5 weeks away from the election. Of course I don't expect such a thing would happen if the election were going to be close, but still, faint praise is still praise. Nevertheless, bias comes creeping in...

PROMISES, PROMISES: Pelosi ethics pledge falters

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised four years ago that Democrats would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."

But as her party defends its record with its majority in jeopardy, two prominent Democrats await ethics trials. Two other party members gave Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to relatives. Most importantly, lobbyists, corporations and special interests still have unimpeded ways to buy access to members of Congress...

Strong start. But let's see where this story goes wrong.

First, this is early in the story:

The Sunlight Foundation, which tracks congressional fundraising events, has identified more than 9,500 since President George W. Bush signed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in September 2007. The law embodies reforms cited by Pelosi as proof that she kept her promise to "drain the swamp" of congressional corruption.

Pelosi was instrumental in winning increased disclosure of lobbyists' spending and contributions; a ban on lobbyist gifts to lawmakers; the end of cheap rides on corporate jets; curtailment of privately financed trips that often amounted to free vacations; creation of an independent ethics office; and the identification of sponsors of "earmarks" — congressional spending given to favored recipients, who often returned the favor with campaign contributions.

It's not until the very end that we're given the rebuttal, though:

Republicans are dismissive. Rep. Dan Lungren, the former attorney general of California, said many of the ethics improvements Pelosi takes credit for were the result of bipartisan agreements on the 2007 Honest Leadership law. Republicans were first with the idea of identifying sponsors of special-interest spending, he said.

And then this statement, the one that's the 2nd most egregious:

And while it may be just good fortune, Democrats can claim that another Jack Abramoff has not arisen on their watch. The influence-peddling lobbyist, who showered lawmakers and their staffs with favors and eventually went to prison, had strong ties to Republicans.

Because, again at the end, what do they slip out?

And last week former lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti, who helped defense clients secure government contracts, pleaded guilty to illegally funneling more than $380,000 in campaign contributions to House members controlling the Pentagon's budget. Three top Democrats he worked with — Jim Moran of Virginia, Peter Visclosky of Indiana and the late John Murtha of Pennsylvania — directed $137 million in defense contracts to the lobbyist's clients.

I mean this is just a "Huh??" moment. Early on you say it's good that no "Abramoff" type has arisen...and then, at the end, you tell us about an "Abramoff" type that has arisen...peddling influence to top Democrats. Oh, and don't think we're not noticing that half-truth about Abramoff, who also had "strong ties to" Democrats like Harry Reid, who is known to have taken steps, acting as a Senator, on behalf of Abramoff clients that donated to him. Last I checked the Democrat majority leader in the Senate was not a Republican.

And, finally, the top of the pops biggest lie in this piece is this:

While no member of Congress has been criminally charged or found to have violated House rules, outside ethics watchdog groups have criticized the lawmakers' conduct.

Really? Four words - William "Cold Cash" Jefferson". I'm pretty sure that he was criminally charged and that this occurred on Pelosi's watch, not to mention the fact that the Democrats refused to condemn Jefferson during the whole hubbub and even tried to get him placed on sensitive committees.

So you take the good (the mere existence of the piece at this time) with the bad (the placement bias, the half-truths, and the one absolute lie) and try to get them to do better.

Ouch! Poll Shows Tea Party Support From Non-Fox News Watchers

Newsbusters reports:

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll didn’t come up with numbers pleasing to the NBC News staff, though Brian Williams, on Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News, did his best to spin the findings as showing “there is really bad news if you're an incumbent officeholder of either party” and Chuck Todd insisted the public wants more from the elections than “just change [in] the color of the jerseys.”

Todd, however, couldn’t avoid reporting that “the change that voters want” includes 54 percent who “hope that this Tea Party enthusiasm in the Republican Party makes them a fiscally conservative party” and “54 percent want to see the repeal of health care.” Plus, “42 percent tell us” the Tea Party movement has “been a good thing” – more than twice as many as see it as a “bad thing.”

Unmentioned by Todd or Williams: Those pro-Tea Party/anti-ObamaCare numbers came from a polling sample dominated by MSM television news consumers. Question 36, in the PDF rundown of the survey, asked from which “television news sources do you get MOST of your information about politics and current events?” From the list offered, 35 percent said “broadcast network news, such as NBC, ABC, or CBS,” 16 percent named “the cable channel CNN” and 8 percent affirmed they rely on “the cable channel MSNBC.” That adds up to 59 percent, compared to 24 percent who cited “the cable channel Fox News.”

Note that the group surveyed, that are basically 2:1 pro- vs. anti-TEA party, are also 1.5:1 anti-Sarah Palin and anti-Newt Gingrich. Clearly the poll demonstrates that these are not just slaves of Sean Hannity. And that's really gotta hurt.

If This Is Recovery, I'd Hate To See A Downturn!

(Briefing.com) Stocks have come under another wave of selling. The latest slide follows news that the Consumer Confidence Index for September came in at 48.5, which is well below the consensus call for 53.0 from economists polled by Briefing.com. What's more, the latest confidence reading is the worst since February.

By all means, run on your "legislative accomplishments", Democrats. Clearly people are thrilled with them.

Is America Still Center-Right?

Apparently it is:

At the same time the public perceives the Republican Party becoming more conservative, more Americans are saying the party reflects their values and their attitude about the role of government, according to newly released Gallup polling data.

Democrats, meanwhile, have lost ground on these measures...

Fifty-four percent of Americans told Gallup they believed the GOP had indeed become more conservative since Obama took office, while only 40 percent said they did not believe the Republicans had become more conservative...

Fifty-two percent told Gallup the Republican Party represented their attitude about the role of government either “very well” or “moderately well,” while only 44 percent said the Democratic Party represented their attitude about the role of government either “very well” or “moderately well.”

Fifty-six percent, meanwhile, told Gallup the Republican Party represented their values either “very well” or “moderately well,” while only 49 percent said the Democratic Party represented their values either “very well” or “moderately well."

The story goes on to note how the polls favor the GOP vs. the Democrat party whereas it was the other way around a few years ago. Which basically just shows you that either people don't know what the hell they want, that the Democrats lied their butts off to get elected (which they admitted to doing) making people perceive them differently that they actually were, or after being hoodwinked and actually living for 4 years under Democrat economics they've finally realize how dumb they were.

Spread It

Your Random Saturday

Thomas Sowell:

Instead, the media spin is that various countries with government-run medical systems have life expectancies that are as long as ours, or longer. That is very clever as media spin, if you don't bother to stop and think about it...

She cites a study by Professors Ohsfeldt and Schneider at the University of Iowa, which shows that, if you leave out people who are victims of homicide or who die in automobile accidents, Americans live longer than people in any other Western country.

Doctors do not prevent homicides or car crashes. In the things that doctors can affect, such as the survival rates of cancer patients, the United States leads the world.

Americans get the latest pharmaceutical drugs, sometimes years before those drugs are available to people in Britain or in other countries where the government runs the medical system. Why? Because the latest drugs cost more and it is cheaper to let people die.

The media have often said that we have higher infant mortality rates than other countries with government medical care systems. But we count every baby that dies and other countries do not. If the media don't tell you that, so much the better for ObamaCare.

But is life and death something to play spin games about?

Phyllis Schlafly sums up the many issues on which Obama is on the opposite end of the spectrum from a majority of Americans. A brief description of each is enough to fill an entire column.

If At First You Crash And Burn

Actual headline on Yahoo: White House looks to boost health law to skeptical voters

After all, they did such a bang up job jetting around the country telling us how wonderful the 'recovery' was and convincing everyone that the 'stimulus' wasn't a giant waste of our children's children's money. Looks like they're going to bring the magic to ObamaCare, next. New slogan - 'Making your life and death decisions for you, because you can't be trusted to think for yourself.'

Real History

From Michael Medved:

As President Barack Obama plaintively inquires on the campaign trail, "Why would anyone want to go back to the economic policies that got us into this mess in the first place?"

Though endlessly regurgitated by mass media, this melodramatic (and highly partisan) storyline amounts to a misleading simplification of the historical record...

During the first two years of Clinton's term of office, while Democrats enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, the average unemployment was rate 6.5 percent -- even worse than the 6.3 percent four-year average of his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, who'd been voted out of office because of economic hard times. Following the 1994 GOP congressional takeover (for the first time in 40 years), business conditions dramatically improved, with the unemployment rate declining to an average of 4.77 percent (during the six years the Republicans and Clinton exercised divided rule).

The deficit picture also brightened after tight-fisted Newt Gingrich and his allies captured 53 Democratic House seats and took the initiative on government spending. During two years of all-Democratic rule (1993-94), the federal deficit averaged 3.35 percent of the gross domestic product, but the subsequent six years (under GOP congressional leadership) brought deficits averaging less than zero -- with surpluses from 1998 through 2001...

In W's first six years, with his GOP allies dominating Capitol Hill, Bush deficits averaged 1.91 percent of the GDP -- well below the 60-year postwar average. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., brought their free- spending ways to House and Senate, deficits soared to a dangerous 4.74 percent over the next two years -- and continued to skyrocket to a projected (and appalling) 10.27 percent for the first two years of Obama.

The unemployment rate went from an average of 5.29 percent during Bush's first six years (with Republican majorities) to 6.57 percent after the Dems came to power -- and an excruciating 9.4 percent (average) during the first 18 months of Obama.

About Those Tax Cuts

Seems like the rightweb is starting to do the heavy lifting that the mainstream media doesn't want to do...exposing the lies of leftists like Pelosi and Obama on tax cuts.

Courtesy of Cassandra:

When progressives lose the AP you know they're really in trouble. But lest you begin to feel sorry for them, fear not: help is on the way.

This is sort of impressive: Paul Krugman simultaneously castigates Republicans for the fiscal irresponsibility of wanting to extend tax cuts for the rich that cost about $700 billion--and for irresponsibly threatening the extension of tax cuts for the middle class which cost three times as much. Yet you could read the entire column and not realize that it's the middle class tax cuts which are the really expensive, budget-busting bit.

Hard to blame Krugman for trying though. Especially when the Associated Press is so good at burying the lede:

Making all the tax cuts permanent would add about $3.9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to congressional estimates. Obama's plan would cost a little more than $3 trillion over the same period.

Let's see if I have this straight (and please correct me if I don't):

Extending all the Bush tax cuts would cost about 3.9 trillion.

Extending only the middle class tax cuts and RAISING taxes on the rich (as opposed to extending their supposedly budget wrecking tax cuts) would cost 3 trillion dollars.

[whipping out handy-dandy pocket calculator]

3.9 billion minus 3 trillion is what? .9 trillion worth of deficit reduction netted by RAISING taxes on the rich as opposed to extending the Bush tax cuts for that income bracket?

[whipping out handy-dandy pocket calculator again]

So that would mean that the vast majority (about 77%) of cost of extending the Bush tax cuts is attributable to existing tax cuts to the middle class. I think that just might fall under the general rubric of Things the Media Might Want to have Mentioned Earlier.

Cassandra, earlier on, links to this bit of honesty from the St. Petersburg Times' well-known and oft-cited 'PolitiFact Truth-O-Meter' where the left's claims rate a Truth-O-Meter-damaging hurtle to the left as a full-on "False": Tax cuts for rich not biggest deficit factor

At a news conference on Jan. 8, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked about the U.S. budget deficit...

"You face a major decision next year on tax rates, since the rates do expire at the end of 2010," the reporter said. "Isn't it inevitable that many taxpayers will face a significant tax increase in 2011?"

"Let me just say that the tax cuts at the high end that you were referencing have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit," Pelosi said. "Don't take my word for it, that's the word of the Congressional Budget Office when the Republicans had control of the Congress."...

When we started this item, we thought it would be relatively straightforward. How wrong we were.

We should start off with the easy stuff: First, there is no CBO report that says tax cuts for the wealthiest are the biggest contributor to the deficit.

We asked Speaker Pelosi's office about her statement, and they pointed us to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the re-emergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years," said the center's analysis.

It also created a handy pie chart that shows tax cuts are responsible for 48 percent of the costs of new legislation between 2001 and 2007. This is second to military spending, the Iraq war and homeland security spending, which together contributed to 35 percent of legislative costs.

But that didn't satisfy us, because that 48 percent number included all tax cuts, not just for the wealthy. It also shows only the costs of new legislation, not the overall deficit...

So what is "the high end"? During the campaign, Barack Obama called for repealing the tax cuts on singles making $200,000 or more and couples making $250,000 or more. This is roughly the top 3 percent of taxpayers.

The Tax Policy Center analyzed that plan and found that if Obama raised the rates on that group, it would generate roughly $350 billion over 10 years. Conversely, leaving in place the Bush tax cuts for everyone else would come to $850 billion over 10 years.

Another way to look at it: The Tax Policy Center calculated what share of the federal tax changes each income bracket gained from the Bush tax cuts. The top 5 percent of earners (those making about $225,000 or more) received 30.5 percent of the tax benefits in 2008, according to their analysis. But conversely, the bottom 95 percent of tax payers got 70 percent. Zoom out from the top 5 percent to the top 20 percent, and their share is 47.8 percent. Critics of the Bush tax cuts can call that disproportionate, but it's still less than half and therefore not "the biggest."...

Certainly tax cuts for high earners have increased the deficit. Pelosi might have made a more convincing case if she had said high earners received a disproportionate benefit from the Bush tax cuts. [*]

But Pelosi said tax cuts for "the high end" were the "biggest" contributor to the federal deficit. We looked at the numbers from a bunch of different angles and found no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy are larger than those of everyone else combined. In fact, all the numbers we looked at showed that tax cuts for middle and lower incomes represent a bigger slice of the overall revenue pie. We think that evidence directly contradicts her, so we rate her statement False.

--

[*] Of course, I would beg to differ with this statement. Compared to the amount of taxes that they pay you cannot simply conclude without running the numbers that their benefit was "disproportionate", particularly since the percentage of total taxes paid by this group is so very "disproportionate". This statement alone should be sufficient to convince source-doubters that the St. Pete Times is no right wing rag. I actually signed up for their fact check updates once upon a time, but found them to be insufficiently unbiased to rely upon. In this instance, the fact that they looked at hard numbers and spoke with a number of sources, not to mention the ease of disputing the CBO report lie since there isn't one, mean that in this case their analysis in on solid ground.

--

Incidentally, what did the CBO actually say about those tax cuts?

A CBO analysis released last week said permanently extending the Bush tax cuts would give the country a "considerable" economic boost over the next few years.

"Under that... scenario, economic growth would be stronger next year; unemployment would be lower next year," said CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, who was appointed to his post by Democratic leaders in Congress.

Moreover, "under current law, both the waning of (Obama's) fiscal stimulus and the scheduled increases in taxes will temporarily subtract from growth, especially in 2011," CBO added.

Spin, Baby, Spin

The false headline:

"Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban"

The TRUE headline should read:

"Bipartisan Senate blocks Democrat bill to lift military gay ban"

The fact is that Republicans and Democrats voted against this. No Republicans voted for it. Some Democrats also voted against it. This push was 100% Democrat (but not 100% of Democrats), the pushback was bipartisan.

The vote fell mostly along party lines, although Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both D-Ark., sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic.

Unsurprisingly, the media casts it as only Republican opposition in the headline. Of course they also seem to think that the majority of readers will be unhappy that the Senate is not going against the military's wishes by forcing open homosexual integration, showing, yet again, how out of touch they are.

Easy

Hmm...let me guess...Do they involve having adulterous sex in your office with the people that work for you while waiting for the private sector to come up with forward-leaping innovations that you then jump out in front of to look like you're leading?

Error

There's an error in this headline...

Obama: People still hurting despite end of recession

Let me clean that up...

Obama still hurting people despite end of recession

There we go.

editoriaLIES

friday gazette and tu

News You Can Use

BMI:

Two fast food companies, the giant franchisor McDonalds, and the small 421-unit chain White Castle, have completed their own detailed analysis of ObamaCare and all the associated new costs aimed at them and their restaurant industry peers, and they have released their findings for us all to see. (Source: Nation’s Restaurant News Sept. 6, nrn.com) By White Castle’s estimates, ObamaCare will steal at least 55 percent of its net income. That’s 55 percent – more than half, for those in Congress who can’t do math. McDonalds’ estimate of losses coming to their franchise owners: 15 to 20 percent of profits, or about $50,000.00 per store.

It's all about that three-letter word: J-O-B-S! Right, Joe?

NY Times - White House Collude On Boehner Attacks

I signed up (I think I signed up) for a resource email a while back and then sort of just never read it. Maybe that was a mistake. Nice item from it here on apparent collusion between Obama's White House and the New York Times and their desperation ploy - attacking the man who will be the Speaker of the House in 2011...because slash-and-burn attack tactics on the guy you will definitely have to be working with in 3 months is a brilliant move (further justifying the assertion I and others have made that Obama and his team are inept, inexperienced dips incapable of leadership or adult behavior):

Bashing Boehner: The Times Does Desperate Obama's Bidding

By giving the administration of Barack Obama a front-page forum to bash House Minority Leader John Boehner last weekend, The New York Times is once again proving that it cannot resist doing the “hope and change” crowd’s dirty laundry.

“A GOP Leader Tightly Bound to Lobbyists,” the paper’s September 12 headline screamed boldly, bashing Boehner for being connected to special interests that “contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns, provided him with rides on their corporate jets, socialized with him at luxury golf resorts and waterfront bashes and are now leading fund-raising efforts for his Boehner for Speaker campaign.”[1]

Assuming that wasn’t sufficiently subtle, the paper also described Boehner as a “perpetually tanned, sharply tailored, chain-smoking golfer.” [I thought that was Obama!]

The Times smear on Boehner is straight out of the left wing playbook – a slash-and-burn mode of divisive political demonization that Obama claims to be “above” but one that legacy media outlets (particularly the Times) are all-too familiar with...

The “stimulus” didn’t work. Blaming Bush didn’t work. Now it is Boehner’s turn to be castigated by the same President who stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in January of 2009 and proclaimed “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."[2]...

“White House surrogates spent the weekend highlighting a New York Times piece detailing (Boehner’s) ties to lobbyists,” wrote Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post two days after the story posted.[3]

Not only is the White House leading the attack through the media, the Obama administration is publicly patting itself on the back for a job well done.

“I think that, yes, it has been successful,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said of the strategy behind attacking Boehner.[4]...

Also, in using the Times to dish his dirt, Obama and his allies conveniently ignore the fact that 45 current or recently-departed Democratic members of Congress – including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – have received more money from lobbyists during the current election cycle than Boehner.[5] They also conveniently ignore the fact that Pelosi frequently uses a taxpayer-funded Gulfstream jet to travel around the globe – or that in her taxpayer-funded travels she recently rang up a massive $101,000 tab for in-flight food and liquor over a two-year period.[6]...

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/us/politics/12boehner.html, web-accessed 9/14/2010
[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/, web-accessed 9/14/2010
[3] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/elevating-boehner-and-will-it.html, web-accessed 9/15/2010
[4] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/118701-white-house-believes-boehner-strategy-is-working, web-accessed 9/15/2010
[5] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/13/fact-check/, web-accessed 9/15/2010
[6] http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123472, web-accessed 9/15/2010

How Things Change

First, plant firmly in your mind what Barack Hussein mmm mmm mmm Obama has done since taking office. Picture the fawning news coverage of his pushing and signing off on TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS in new deficit spending. Picture the coverage (that doesn't emphasize how 'women and the poor are the hardest hit') of the way that unemployment has shot to just under 10% since he took office and refuses to come down while economists say it will not come down for many months, if not years.

Envision "CHANGE!"

Got those in mind?

Journey back in time with me to October 2008...

By contrast, Mr Obama used his own speech in Toledo, Ohio, to lay out a four-point "Economic Rescue Plan for the Middle Class" and deliver a sober warning that straitened circumstances will require all American to adopt a "new ethic of responsibility" if they are to break the cycle of debt.

"Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means - from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street," he said.

"CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn’t have...We’ve lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save."...

“It’s a plan that begins with one word that’s on everyone’s mind and it’s spelled J-O-B-S,” said Mr Obama...

How's that hopey-changey thing working out for you, America?

File Under: Not What They Meant

Headline reads: Two big threats to U.S. economy are fading, reports show

No kidding. Presumably they mean "Obama" and "Democrat-held Congress".

;)

Labeling Bias - Parallax

We all know one of the media's favorite tricks is to pretend liberals are moderate, moderates are conservatives, and conservatives are right wing abortion-doctor-killing lynch mobs.

Cue it up...

More House Democrats call for tax cuts for all

More Democrats joined Republicans on Wednesday in calling for the preservation of tax breaks for Americans of every income level, bolting this election season from President Barack Obama's plan to preserve cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 and let taxes rise for the wealthiest Americans...

"It is essential that we keep things as they are in the short term," said Rep. Travis W. Childers, D-Miss., another conservative incumbent in a tight race, whose district, like Marshall's, voted for Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential race.

This "conservative"'s ACU rating? 40.5. Compared to Obama he's Newt Gingrich...but he's by no means a "conservative". For all the talk about the GOP purging moderates from their ranks (and it's not "the GOP", it's conservative Republican Americans), the left purged the moderates from their party years ago, which is why their entire leadership is far-left/socialist now. You don't get socialists put in charge when you have a lot of moderates voting for them.

The Decline Continues

So, upon awakening and seeing the primary results I see that the Republican party in NY continues to be an utter joke and now seems to be embracing that by putting up a clown as their candidate for governor. Are you kidding me, NY?

Relics Found Of Ancient Men That Lived INSIDE Ice!

Yes! It's true! Relics have been recovered of men that used to live within ice!

Climate change is exposing reindeer hunting gear used by the Vikings' ancestors faster than archaeologists can collect it from ice thawing in northern Europe's highest mountains...

Specialized hunting sticks, bows and arrows and even a 3,400-year-old leather shoe have been among finds since 2006 from a melt in the Jotunheimen mountains, the home of the "Ice Giants" of Norse mythology.

As water streams off the Juvfonna ice field, Piloe and two other archaeologists -- working in a science opening up due to climate change -- collect "scare sticks" they reckon were set up 1,500 years ago in rows to drive reindeer toward archers...

Glaciers are in retreat from the Andes to the Alps, as a likely side-effect of global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the U.N. panel of climate experts says.

The panel's credibility has suffered since its 2007 report exaggerated a thaw by saying Himalayan glaciers might vanish by 2035. It has stuck to its main conclusion that it is "very likely" that human activities are to blame for global warming.

"Over the past 150 years we have had a worldwide trend of glacial retreat," said Michael Zemp, director of the Swiss-based World Glacier Monitoring Service. While many factors were at play, he said "the main driver is global warming."...

Amazing! These ancient men used to live within ice! Because, as we know they didn't have SUVs and coal plants, so these places couldn't have been warmer and un-covered by ice before, as we are constantly told. These men used to have the ability to actually move through ice! It's only now that the evils of modern man are melting away the ice that used to surround these ancient hunters. As we all know things like the medieval warm period are nothing but lies told by denialists and people that should be investigated and are surly on BIG OIL's take!

This Is News

In a world where liberal biases don't dominate our nation's news this would be serious headline news...but when the cause of the economic downturn turns out to not be Bush but a gang of liberal Democrats, I guess it doesn't make the cut:

The Democrats' Fannie Is Showing

After the global financial crisis, no politician would dare chide another for too much "safety and soundness." But in 2004, 76 Democrats actually asked President Bush not to manage Fannie Mae responsibly.

There are smoking guns and then there are smoking bazookas. The June 28, 2004, letter from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and dozens of other House Democrats to President Bush, posted by Moe Lane on Redstate.com last week, forever squashes Democratic claims about the mortgage crisis not being their fault.

"We urge you to reconsider your administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the 'GSEs') and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs," states the missive of nearly a page and a half, signed by a rogues' gallery of 76 House Democrats...

Almost comically, the letter states that the Democrats are unhappy the Bush administration is "emphasizing only safety and soundness," claiming that "an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing."

And the Democratic representatives charged that "because Congress has not been willing to jeopardize the GSEs' mission, the administration has turned to attacking the GSEs publicly."...

That Fannie and Freddie are disasters is, of course, today undeniable. Even Frank last month told Fox Business Network's Neil Cavuto regarding Fannie and Freddie, "I think they should be abolished."...

Six years ago was another story: "Join us," Frank and the 75 other Democrats were demanding, "in advocating for more innovative loan products and programs for people who desire to buy manufactured housing, similar products to preserve as affordable and rehabilitate aging affordable housing, and more meaningful GSE affordable housing goals."

They insisted that President Bush "place a high priority on working with the GSEs to close as many loans as possible this year" and reiterated "that an exclusive emphasis on safety and soundness . .. is misplaced."

The 9.6% unemployment that Americans now suffer is directly connected to the many years of Democrats' demagoguery. They said that any attempt to rein in Fannie and Freddie was anti-poor and anti-minority — fiscal soundness be damned...

Here's the page: Democratic hypocrisy on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Here's the letter that should, by rights, be on the front page of every newspaper in America...of course that would likely lead to utter destruction at the polls for the Democrats instead of just a tsunami: link.

Smoking gun, indeed. Damn that George Bush for worrying about the safety and security of our economy at the expense of giving loans to people that can't pay them back! Damn him!!!!!

Barney Frank Finally Admits Cuomo And Clinton Wrong

Well it's about freakin' time. Barney Frank has been, with the corrupt Chris Dodd, one of the biggest cheerleaders for 'affordable housing' and government meddling in housing. He defended the ludicrous scheme concocted by Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo to force banks to give mortgages to people on the basis of things like unemployment checks. Larry Kudlow is choosing to give Frank the benefit of the doubt, that his acceptance of the truth is not just a political ploy in a year when voters are aghast at what Frank and his party are doing to America with their economic plans and rules. We'll see...it wasn't that long ago that Frank was calling for the same type of interference we had with homes to apply to condos...

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”

When I asked Frank about a long-term phase-out plan that would shrink Fannie and Freddie portfolios and mortgage-purchase limits, and merge the agencies into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for a separate low-income program that would get government out of middle-income housing subsidies, he replied: “Larry, that, I think, is exactly what we should be doing.”...

I think Chairman Frank watched these government behemoths descend into hell and then witnessed the financial catastrophe that ensued. And I think he has come to realize that the whole system of federal affordable-housing mandates that was central to the real-estate collapse -- including the mandates on Fannie and Freddie and the myriad bad decisions made by private banks and other lenders in response to the government’s overreach -- simply needs to be abolished...

We will have to see if Congress really does say good-bye to Fan and Fred, as Republicans like Jeb Hensarling are advocating. Equally important, we will have to see if the federal affordable-housing mandates created by Congress and implemented by HUD and banking regulators are similarly repealed...

Yes, the person that implemented those mandates while proclaiming their wonderfulness? Andrew Cuomo.

More here: The Democrats' Fannie Is Showing

That Fannie and Freddie are disasters is, of course, today undeniable. Even Frank last month told Fox Business Network's Neil Cavuto regarding Fannie and Freddie, "I think they should be abolished."

The Financial Costs Of The Iraq War

Everybody else is linking to this, so I probably should to, it's worth looking at...a lot:

Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not

The Iraq War ends this month. The last combat brigade left August 19. Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began in 2003, will end August 31. September 1 marks the beginning of Operation New Dawn. Now that it's over, what did the Iraq War cost?

Here are examples of what some people had been saying about Iraq War costs.

"It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq..."
- James Carville, the Financial Times.

"The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home."
- Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Washington Post.

"First, the facts. Nearly the entire deficit for this year and those projected into the near and medium terms are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession. The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars..."
- Christopher Hayes, The Nation.

The correct answer to my question, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is $709 billion. The Iraq War cost $709 billion. Why Carville, Bilmes, and Nobel-winning economist Stiglitz thought the answer was $3 trillion is anybody's guess. But what's a 323% error among friends?...

...Republicans wrote the budgets for the fiscal years through 2007. Congressional Democrats wrote the budgets for FY 2008 and on. When the Democrats also took over the White House, they immediately passed an $814-billion "stimulus." (The $814 billion figure is from the same CBO report as the Iraq War costs. See sources at end of article.)

The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02 trillion...

So the following are facts, based on the government's own figures.

* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

They Don't Support The Troops

(I thought it was time to bump this back to the top)

Face it. There are people that we no longer have to pretend "support the troops". I'm not just talking about the nutjobs (for lack of a better, non-profane term) that hold up "we support the troops when they kill their officers" placards (incidentally I didn't see any of them there to support the guy here in NY that did just that, lobbing a grenade into a command tent in an effort to kill officers - where were his placard holding buddies?), no, I'm talking about your everyday, ordinary, leftwing celebrities and politicians. Let's keep a list, shall we? I'll keep updating this and bumping it as needed.

They don't support the troops:

-
Hillary Clinton, NY Senator/SecState, Democrat
Professed the need for a "willing suspension of disbelief" to listen to General Petraeus, giving a report on the state of Iraq as ordered by Congress. To be more blunt, Hillary Clinton has called the leader of our armed forces in Iraq a liar. To dismiss the leader of our armed forces delivering a sober, detailed assessment of military progress before Congress as a liar is not a supporter of our troops. Hillary Clinton also refused to denouce those that called Petraeus a betrayer and voted against a resolution denoucing the ad.

On May 1 (that would be the communist holiday "May Day"), 2007, Senator Clinton insulted our sailors who were being praised for accomplishing a grueling deployment to the Middle East, who had, in celebration for their successful homecoming, hung a banner proclaiming that they had a "Mission Accomplished". Hillary Clinton called the praising of the USS Abraham Lincoln's crew:

"One of the most shameful episodes in American history."

-
MoveOn.org, liberal nutjobs
Ran a full page ad in the New York Times calling the leader of our armed forces in Iraq a betrayer of the American people for preparing a sober, detailed assessment of the situation in Iraq and delivering it, as ordered, by Congress. General Petraeus' sole task is the defense of the sovereign Iraqi state and the elimination of terrorists, both by many different means including defense, offense, and training. They also called this leader of our troops a liar:

"constantly at war with the facts"

On September 11, 2007, the sleazeballs called Petraeus a liar, in the process lying about his report:

"General David Petraeus misled the country"

On August 29, 2007, the sleazeballs called Vietnam veterans campaigning against the man they actually served with, using firsthand witnesses that were never shown to be wrong (while being proven correct by the Kerry camp), "unethical" liars. In the same ad, they call current veterans, veterans wounded in action defending Iraqis from terrorists (as well as their families), "unethical" liars:

"They lie— blurring the line between al Qaeda and Iraq . And they're emotional— featuring injured troops and their families."

-
Janeane Garofalo, liberal media face/actress/ex-comedian/Air America voice
Is Air American still around? Tasked with leading our armed forces in Iraq constitutes, to Ms. Garofalo, betrayal of America:

"Yet, he is betraying us."

I suggest following the link (beware the picture of an extremely ratty, unkempt Ms. Garofalo - she appears to be in the final stages of BDS and will likely announce a run for public office soon). She also stated that the leader of our armed forces in Iraq is a liar:

"Petraeus has been dishonest."

Calling the leader of our armed forces a liar and betrayer is not 'supporting the troops'.

-
The New York Times, one-time newspaper of record
Has run stories that damaged if not destroyed critical anti-terror operations that are completely legal by any standard, thereby making the task of our armed forces engaged with terrorists more difficult, thereby endangering their lives. Ran the Moveon.org ad calling the leader of our armed forces in Iraq a betrayer of the American people, which they now admit violated their ad policies:

"For nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.

But I think the ad violated The Times's own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to."

-
Bill Maher, Liberal Talking Head
On CNN on Sept. 18, 2007, called General Petraeus a liar:

BLITZER: They say those words were their own.

MAHER: Well, it was a White House-written report.

Continued denouncing our military commander in Iraq as a liar to Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: But let me point out. General Petraeus, who has been a military officer for more than 30 years, the first thing he basically said out of his mouth when he testified last week, is 'I didn't show this testimony to anyone. I wrote it myself. I didn't have it vetted by the chain of command. Not by the White House. Not by anyone at the Pentagon. Not by anyone in Congress.' Don't you believe him when he says that?

MAHER: No. I'm sorry, I don't...because they manipulated the statistics the same way Enron did. It didn't count.

He went on to quote the ridiculous claims made by MoveOn.org that have been thoroughly discredited about the report. He then calls Petraeus motives into question:

Yes, I admire anybody who is in the war zone. But that doesn't mean that he is not performing a political function for the White House. Now, you can read into that what you will. But I'm sorry. Just because he's wearing a uniform, I can't not [sic] see what I see, which is that the man is doing a political job for George Bush.

Note that Petraeus' testimony was ordered by Congress, not by President Bush, nor was it at a whim or wish by President Bush. It was ordered by Congress. You can't simultaneously support the troops and call them lying stooges, unless you're supporting their lying stoogery - which seems unlikely.

-
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
When asked about General Petraeus and his report on Iraq, stated, on video, "I don't believe him." Harry Reid, the man jackass that declared the war lost from the beginning, the man jackass that said the surge (you know, the one that's now being reported as quite successful and, hey, we just killed another senior Al Qaeiouda leader in Iraq (where there are no terorrists, just sectarian militants) even in the Times Union) was a failure before it had even taken place, claims to know more from his comfy chair in DC about what's going on in Iraq than does General Petraeus, our top military leader in Iraq, a real man that has walked patrols with US and Iraqi forces fighting off terrorists and child-murderers. Harry Reid calls Petraeus a liar for delivering his Congressionally-mandated report on the status of Iraq and has the nerve to throw Petraeus' 'the war cannot be won militarily' out as if he had even a shred of honor in his black, moronic heart to not take the words out of context or believe that Petraeus was saying that we should pull out, or that the war will not certainly be lost if we surrender, or that our brave forces in Iraq are not critical for defending the rise of democracy that will be a victory. Scum of the earth that certainly does not support our troops. And you might find the roll call vote for the Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934 on September 20, where we find out just which Democrats (and Democrats pretending to be Independents) in the Senate are willing to flat out deny that General Petraeus (confirmed unanimously by the US Senate) and our armed forces deserve the support of the Senate:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Which Senators believe that General Petraeus does not deserve the support of the US Senate and will not condemn personal attacks on his honor and integrity as well as that of our armed forces?

Harry Reid (D-NV)
Hillary Clinton (D-A Village)
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-KKK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-BURP)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Proud, NY? Both of our jackass Senators flat out denied that General Petraus and our Armed Forces should be supported and personal attacks on them should not be condemned. Please add each of the above to the list of those that are on record NOT SUPPORTING our troops, in fact flatly denying that they deserve support. Commence swearing.

-
Code Pink - semi-professional troop haters
This was a pretty easy inclusion, sorry it slipped my attention. Essentially the entire raison d'etre of this group is the hatred for, protest of, and slander of our armed forces and all they stand for. Most lately here at a Marine recruiting station where they call the recruiters liars and murderers. Here is the response from someone that deserves our respect, utilizing his free speech in a way that doesn't disgust Americans that don't loathe their freedom:

Commentary: An Open Letter to Code Pink
By Richard Lund (10-02-07)

While the protest that you staged in front of my office on Wednesday, Sept. 26th, was an exercise of your constitutional rights, the messages that you left behind were insulting, untrue, and ultimately misdirected. Additionally, from the comments quoted in the Berkeley Daily Planet article, it is clear that you have no idea what it is that I do here. Given that I was unaware of your planned protest, I was unable to contest your claims in person, so I will therefore address them here.

First, a little bit about who I am: I am a Marine captain with over eight years of service as a commissioned officer. I flew transport helicopters for most of my time in the Marine Corps before requesting orders to come here. Currently, I am the officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area. My job is to recruit, interview, screen, and evaluate college students and college graduates that show an interest in becoming officers in the Marine Corps. Once they’ve committed to pursuing this program, I help them apply, and if selected, I help them prepare for the rigors of Officer Candidate School and for the challenges of life as a Marine officer. To be eligible for my programs, you have to be either a full-time college student or a college graduate. I don’t pull anyone out of school, and high school students are not eligible.

I moved my office to Berkeley in December of last year. Previously, it was located in an old federal building in Alameda. That building was due to be torn down and I had to find a new location. I choose our new site because of its proximity to UC Berkeley and to the BART station. Most of the candidates in my program either go to Cal or to one of the schools in San Francisco, the East Bay, or the North Bay. Logistically, the Shattuck Square location was the most convenient for them.

Next, you claim that I lie. I have never, and will never, lie to any individual that shows an interest in my programs. I am upfront with everything that is involved at every step of the way and I go out of my way to ensure that they know what to expect when they apply. I tell them that this is not an easy path. I tell them that leading Marines requires a great deal of self-sacrifice. I tell them that, should they succeed in their quest to become a Marine officer, they will almost certainly go to Iraq. In the future, if you plan to attack my integrity, please have the courtesy to explain to me specifically the instances in which you think that I lied.

Next, scrawled across the doorway to my office, you wrote, “Recruiters are Traitors.” Please explain this one. How exactly am I a traitor? Was I a traitor when I joined the Marine Corps all those years ago? Is every Marine, therefore, a traitor? Was I a traitor during my two stints in Iraq? Was I a traitor when I was delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Sumatra? Or do you only consider me a traitor while I am on this job? The fact is, recruitment is and always has been a part of maintaining any military organization. In fact, recruitment is a necessity of any large organization. Large corporations have employees that recruit full-time. Even you, I’m sure, must expend some effort to recruit for Code Pink. So what, exactly, is it that makes me a traitor?

The fact is this: any independent nation must maintain a military (or be allied with those who do) to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Regardless of what your opinions are of the current administration or the current conflict in Iraq, the U.S. military will be needed again in the future. If your counter-recruitment efforts are ultimately successful, who will defend us if we are directly attacked again as we were at Pearl Harbor? Who would respond if a future terrorist attack targets the Golden Gate Bridge, the BART system, or the UC Berkeley clock tower? And, to address the most hypocritical stance that your organization takes on its website, where would the peace keeping force come from that you advocate sending to Darfur?

Finally, I believe that your efforts in protesting my office are misdirected. I agree that your stated goals of peace and social justice are worthy ones. War is a terrible thing that should only be undertaken in the most dire, extreme, and necessary of circumstances. However, war is made by politicians. The conflict in Iraq was ordered by the president and authorized by Congress. They are the ones who have the power to change the policy in Iraq, not members of the military. We execute policy to the best of our ability and to the best of our human capacity. Protesting in front of my office may be an easy way to get your organization in the headlines of local papers, but it doesn’t further any of your stated goals.

To conclude, I don’t consider myself a “recruiter.” I am a Marine who happens to be on recruiting duty. As such, I conduct myself in accordance with our core values of honor, courage, and commitment. I will never sacrifice my honor by lying to anyone that walks into my office. I will never forsake the courage that it takes to restrain myself in the face of insulting and libelous labels like liar and traitor. And, most importantly, I will never waver from my commitment to helping individuals who desire to serve their country as officers in the Marine Corps.


Captain Richard Lund is the United States Marine Corps’ officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area.

Weep for those that don't even have the brains or heart to be ashamed of themselves. They do not support the troops in any way, shape, or form. I have no desire to directly expose anyone to more of their hateful sickness, but if you're so inclined you can easily find other examples of their disrespectful hatred of our soldiers, including hectoring and insulting our wounded troops at Walter Reed.

Code Pink Tells Gold Star Mom: Your Son Deserved to Die

I still clearly remember the day that I was summoned home by my oldest son Kristofer to find the Navy officers and chaplain waiting inside my home to tell me the most painful and agonizing words I would ever hear, “We are sorry to inform you that your son Marc Alan Lee was killed in action.”...

Numerous times over the past four years I have confronted the antics of Jodie Evans and her anti-war Code Pink cronies. We’ve all seen the nightly news with them being arrested time and time again throwing their leftist temper tantrums with their pink boa feathers wrapped around their necks as they kick and scream like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum to get attention. They have sent over $600,000.00 to the terrorists in Fallujah, or as they called them, “freedom fighting” heroes. You would think treasonous acts like this would have them locked in jail. Over and over they have attacked our military recruiting offices causing thousands of dollars of damage to the offices and threatening the recruiters.

In 2008 they barricaded the recruiting office in Berkeley with the blessing of the Berkeley City Council. We at Move America Forward had all we could stomach when we heard them tell the Marines they were unwelcome, unwanted intruders, not in Iraq or Afghanistan but on American soil in Berkeley, California. Americans from across the nation joined us in Berkeley to counter-protest these anti-war hippies. Numerous times they told me they support the troops but not the war, yet over and over when I asked if they had sent care packages, phone cards, written letters, or helped the families left behind in anyway, they conveniently couldn’t remember anything they had done. Yet they had a successful fundraiser to send $600,000.00 to our enemies in Iraq? Yet Jodie Evans and her Code Pink degenerates taunted me and made light of my son’s sacrifice telling me, “Your son deserved to die in Iraq if he was stupid enough to go over there.” It took every ounce of reserve in my body to not level these idiots to the ground. These same people who call terrorists “freedom fighters” says that my son, who gave up his life for their freedoms, deserved death.

-
The New Republic, prominent liberal publication
Publishing unverified slander of our troops during a war is not supporting the troops:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6
Link 7

-
Andy Rooney, liberal blowhard
Speaking with Don Imus on March 14, Andy Rooney had the following to say about our men and women in uniform serving in harms' way and elsewhere around the globe:

Well, I think a draft produces a better army than the one we would have with all volunteers. Because I think you get average Americans if you, if you have a draft. And if it’s an all volunteer army, you get people who join up because of some problem in their own lives. They don’t have anything else to do, they don’t have a job, or they can’t find what they want to do, so they join the Army. And it doesn’t produce the best army.

-
Alan Arkin, Washington Post Columnist and, amazingly, NBC News Military Analyst
Earlier this year Mr. Scuzz had this to say about our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters in our armed forces:

[T]he recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary -- oops sorry, volunteer -- force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

Yeah, daddy has to leave his job for 14 months to go to Iraq because he's in the National Guard, but really he's just in it for the money - a soldier for hire. Sorry, Scuzz, you don't get to insult our armed forces as "mercenaries" and still say you support them - especially when you also lament how they're not spit on or called "baby killers" as much anymore and call them murderers and rapists:

Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

You have to wonder if Mr. Scuzz have ever actually talked to a soldier who has been to Iraq when he speaks of the "obscene amenities" they have there. And, for added measure, Scuzz, when you call our armed forces, especially given the modern makeup, older and better educated than ever before, 'too young and too stupid to know that they should agree with you', there is no way in hell you get to say you support them:

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naive and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

No one's calling them baby killers and spitting on them? You just did, as**ole.

-
John Kerry, Senator (Democrat - MA)
Can't believe I forgot this jerk. Along with slandering his fellows in Vietnam by lying about delusional atrocities, he had this to say about our current boys and girls, men and women in Iraq:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Yeah, study hard, cuz if you're stupid you have to go to Iraq. There is no way, just no way that John Kerry now or ever has publicly supported our armed forces - quite a change from his hero, another JFK. And only a real troop hater would further insult the intelligence of our armed forces by pretending, after the fact, that he meant to insult the President's intelligence (the President that got better grades than he did) instead of them. Here's a hint, insulting the intelligence of our troops, then insulting their intelligence again by saying they're too dumb to know what he meant, isn't supporting the troops.

-
Representative Charles Rangel, Democrat - NY
I know, ex-military. Tough. Jimmy Carter was (yuck) President, but that doesn't mean he supports Bush.

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq," Rangel said during last weekend's Fox News Sunday program.

"If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it," Rangel added. "No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of education benefits."

Source

-
Musician David Crosby
Claims that our military has been given the job of murdering women.

"You know, on the one hand you've got a young kid who is patriotic, who loves his country, believes in it, and he's being told, 'Yeah this is the truth, and we've gotta go in there to protect your mother and your sister.' And he goes over, and he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister."

-
The City, particularly its leaders, of Berkeley, CA

On Jan. 29, the Berkeley city council passed several measures targeting the lone Marine recruitment office in town. The anti-war harridans at Code Pink have been picketing the center for months. Last fall, they defaced the building by slapping a sign that read "assasination" (sic) in the military office window. Instead of rising to defend the recruiters' property rights, the city council and mayor voted to sabotage them further. They granted Code Pink special parking privileges directly in front of the Marines' workplace to facilitate their protests -- and also offered them a free sound permit for six months...

They proceeded with zoning changes to treat recruiting centers like porn shops. They encouraged residents to continue to impede the recruiters' work. Never mind federal law making it a crime to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. If that weren't blood-boiling enough, the Berkeleyites put the troops under further siege by voting to send a letter to the U.S. Marine Corps calling them "uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

Video of the council meeting showed city officials trashing the Marines as "the president's own gangsters" and "trained killers" who are known for "death and destruction and maiming." One of the council members complained that our men and women in uniform were responsible for "horrible karma." Mayor Tom Bates offered to "help" the Marines evacuate...

Only one council member, Gordon Wozniak, opposed the Code Pink measure -- pointing out that the council was bending the rules, intentionally setting up a confrontation between the group and the recruitment office, and "showing favoritism." He was outnumbered, 8-to-1. Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin and her minions gloated over the vote and turned up at the recruitment center to rub salt in the wound: "We are the defenders of democracy, the upholders of the Constitution. If it weren't for people like the people in Berkeley, standing up for what they believe, we'd be living under Hitler."

Her thugs defaced the recruitment center again -- this time with a banner of bloody handprints stretched across the window as recruiters tried to do their jobs...

The Mayor and city council of Berkeley, California demonstrably do NOT support the troops.

UPDATE

...At its Jan. 29, 2008 meeting, the Berkeley City Council passed three controversial resolutions: One said the Marine recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders..."

And to facilitate those protests, the city council also voted on Jan. 29 to give the group Code Pink a free parking space in front of the recruiting station so it would have a place to conduct its weekly protests -- with bullhorns. (A free sound permit was included with the free parking space...)

The controversy reaches all the way into the halls of Congress, where Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina (and other Republicans) introduced a bill that would strip Berkeley of pork barrel spending.

The Semper Fi Act of 2008 would rescind over $2 million in hidden earmarks for Berkeley in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and transfer those funds to the Marine Corps instead.

U.S. Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Senate Democrats have so far blocked Republican efforts to advance the Semper Fi Act.

Instead of adjourning at the end of the day as usual, the Senate "recessed" twice last week, a move that slows the process of adding new bills to the calendar, The Hill newspaper reported.

"The only reason to recess is to block something, and the thing that got blocked by Reid's stall tactic was the Semper Fi Act," said Sen. DeMint's spokesman Wesley Denton. "Democrats have chosen not to defend the Marine Corps, but to pander to anti-war protesters and Berkeley officials that are actively trying to impede military recruitment."

-
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
"Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."

So, basically, if you come from a military family, well, that's "pretty dangerous".

-
Pete Stark (D-CA)

"You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we could get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Calling our soldiers, giving their lives to defend men, women, and children from the bombs, bullets, and chlorine attacks of terrorists, terrorists being sent to do this job against their will is NOT the action of someone that supports our armed forces.

-
Stephen King - increasingly moonbatty author

"If you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don’t, then you’ve got the Army, Iraq, I don’t know, something like that. It’s not as bright."

Speaking to students - disparaging our modern military that is, on average, better educated and more accomplished than the populace as a whole.

-
Michael Moore - fatass loser

"Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals."

Yeah, right, you "support the troops", you just hate the senior troops that are responsible for making sure the ones you love survive and succeed. Let me guess, you "support the troops when they shoot their officers"? We've heard that one before, spithead.

-
Chris Matthews - ex-Democrat staffer, liberal blow hard - very hard

Calls West Point, the military academy that trains our soldiers of tomorrow, an "enemy camp". Guess what? When you call our troops the "enemy", you're not supporting them.

Your Random IBD

Continuing on catching up -

MoveOn Target

Already something smells funny with the leftist radicals of MoveOn.org. The group, which claims to be member-run and grass roots, seems to have full-blown rebellion on its hands over its nonstop boycott of and harassment campaign against Target Corp.

Last month, the Minneapolis-based retailing giant donated $100,000 to a pro-business group called MN Forward. MN Forward in turn donated some of its cash to Republican candidate Tom Emmer, who's running for governor of Minnesota on a pro-business platform...

It announced a national boycott of Target, claiming the company was anti-gay because Emmer opposed gay marriage. To make things nuttier, the group claimed that the donation, ruled perfectly legal by the Supreme Court in January, "subverts our democracy.".

Target, which has supported "progressive" causes to a fault in the past, apologized long ago to MoveOn.org and said it would review its donations more closely in the future. But that only made MoveOn.org nuttier.

It organized unkempt protestors to dance around as "flash mobs" on an Internet film clip, on the premises of Target stores, vandalizing merchandise and disgusting anyone who saw it. It also spent $35,000 on an anti-Target ad that was so extreme, even the left-leaning MSNBC refused to run it.

But the real oddity starts when one looks at the group's Facebook page. There, its own members, the people MoveOn.org claims call the shots in the organization, seem to be against them.

"Sorry guys," wrote one. "They apologized and won't do this again without a full review. Point made. I'm gay and I'm going to shop there."

"I'm sorry to see that MoveOn.org, originally a very important voice, has hit a new low in proving its irrelevancy," wrote another.

Said a third: "I thought MoveOn was supposed to be about supporting the working class and middle class? Why are we going into their places of work and harassing them?"

Still another: "MoveOn how about you move on to another topic!!"

As the harassment of Target goes on even against the wishes of many MoveOn.org members, it sounds like MoveOn is listening to monied interests a lot more...

Same Old Game

The president's supporters say this is a good plan — giving Republicans the tax cuts they want while letting average Americans keep their current tax rates. Only the "rich" get hit.

This plan is actually quite cynical, as even the New York Times tacitly admits, saying Obama "intends to cast the issue as a choice between supporting the middle class or giving breaks to the wealthy." In short, it's not really about jobs at all. It's about politics...

As economists Kevin Hassett and Alan Viard recently noted, "Fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007."

A recent National Federation of Independent Business survey found that 50% of the small-business owners who employ 20 to 249 workers fall in the top two income brackets. They're the "rich."...

Well, as the National Taxpayers Union recently reported, the richest 1% of Americans earn 23% of all income and pay almost twice that — 40% — toward income taxes. Meantime, the bottom 50% take home 12% of the income and pay only 2.9% of the taxes.

Fair? Since 2002, the year before President Bush's 2003 across-the-board tax cut went into effect, the share of taxes paid by the wealthy has risen every year. As for Democrats' claim that the tax cuts "benefited only the wealthy," 7 million new U.S. jobs were created from 2003 to 2008. How's that stack up to Obama's record of 4 million lost and counting?

Some unbelievable stuff in this one...well, it used to be unbelievable. Wait'll you see what their union boss has to say! Check's In The Mail

The U.S. Postal Service expects to lose $7 billion in the current fiscal year and delivers less mail each year. It could use some fiscal austerity. But the postal workers union wants more, more, more...

The post office administration recognizes that its business model is unsustainable and wants to cut costs by trimming wages and benefits and adding part-time workers. While these responses make sense to the rest of the world, the American Postal Workers Union and its president, William Burrus, are having trouble with reality.

The union wants "more control over activities at work, more money, better benefits — we want more," Burrus told Government Executive magazine. "We will try to fashion our proposals to reflect the entitlement to more."

Entitlement to more? By what standard does he believe the workers of a failing "business" are entitled to more, let alone a job? Neither jobs nor high and ever-escalating wages are rights. But that's the union mindset: Demand more no matter what difficulties a business, or in this case a government-protected monopoly, is facing.

That same mindset believes that no jobs is better than moderate- or low-paying jobs. In just the last year, unions helped kill a mall project worth 2,220 jobs in the Bronx because the developer wouldn't guarantee that all tenants would pay workers at least $10 an hour. They also set a GM plant in Indiana on course to be shut down because members refused to take a pay cut.

Why Would Anyone Oppose A Victory Mosque Here?

Gee, I have no idea...
How about a trip to the State Museum in Albany to refresh everyone's memories? They've got some new pieces: link

Media Bias

Check this lovely story from Lolita at the AP out: Report: US must deal with domestic radical problem

The U.S. was slow to take seriously the threat posed by homegrown radicals and the government has failed to put systems in place to deal with the growing phenomenon, according to a new report compiled by the former heads of the Sept. 11 Commission...

"Our long-held belief that homegrown terrorism couldn't happen here has thus created a situation where we are today stumbling blindly through the legal, operational and organizational minefield of countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment occurring in the United States," said the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

As a result, there is still no federal agency specifically charged with identifying radicalization or working to prevent terrorist recruitment of U.S. citizens and residents, said the report, slated to be released Friday by the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Preparedness Group...

blah blah blah...allow me to make my point.

Open story. Control-F. 'muslim'. 1 hit. In a comment about Britain:

But the U.S., the group said, should have learned earlier from Britain's experience. Prior to the 2005 London suicide bombings, the British believed that Muslims there were better integrated, educated and wealthier than their counterparts elsewhere.

Control-F. 'islam'. Zero hits.

Usefulness and acknowledgment of world reality in 2010? Zero.

Go to actual report.

Control-F. 'muslim'. 31 hits. 'islam'. 29 hits, mostly in names (I filtered out 'Islamabad', didn't see any 'Islamisbad's)

No hits on local militias or Christians. The report is about islamic terror. Why isn't the story told that way?

I Don't Get It

Fla. minister determined to hold 9/11 Quran burn

The leader of a small Florida church that espouses anti-Islam philosophy said Wednesday he was determined to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11, despite pressure from the White House, religious leaders and others to call it off.

Pastor Terry Jones said at a press conference that he has received a lot of encouragement, with supporters mailing copies of the Islamic holy text to his Gainesville church of about 50 followers. He proclaimed in July that he would stage "International Burn-a-Quran Day" to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11...

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the pastor's plans were outrageous, and along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, urged Jones to cancel the event.

"It is regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Florida, with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and distrustful, disgraceful plan and get the world's attention, but that's the world we live in right now," Clinton said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations...

Jones' actions likely would be protected by the First Amendment's right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that speech deemed offensive to many people, even the majority of people, cannot be suppressed by the government unless it is clearly directed to intimidate someone or amounts to an incitement to violence, legal experts said.

I'm confused. What he is doing seems to be perfectly legal. And, as an activist pentecostal, all he's doing is exercising his religion, which seems to demand that he push back against islamists. These people criticizing him might want to brush up on their First Amendment! They are being completely bigoted and intolerant for claiming that just because he can do something, he should rethink what and how he is doing it!

Was that a transparent enough exposure of the left's hypocrisy over certain other current events *cough cough Ground Zero mosque cough*?

-
updated

To belabor the point...now Obey-Won himself is again wading in "exhorting" and "imploring" this guy to call off his KQouran burning because it was inflammatory (sorry, couldn't resist). But building a victory mosque a couple of hundred feet from where muslim terrorists incinerated and crushed several thousand innocents in a building that was itself hit by debris, well, that's just good old American values at work.

Truly, the hypocrisy of the left is a wonder to behold. Do you think they even realize the idiocy of their positions?

--

IBD: Burning The Quran

When President Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, he asked that all images and symbols representing Jesus Christ be covered so as not to be in the frame of any videos or photos of the event. There were no reports of rioting...

We do not endorse book burning or the burning of the holy book of any religion. We'd advise Pastor Terry Jones of the 50-member Dove World Outreach Center against going through with his planned Quran burning on Saturday, Sept. 11, the day the World Trade Center and the people inside burned in 2001.

Pastor Jones, if in an unfortunate way, is trying to make a point, which is: "Maybe it's time for America to stand up. How long are we going to be controlled by the terrorists, by radical Islam?" To him, sensitivity seems to be a one-way street...

Recently a controversial court ruling in Malaysia held that "Allah," the Arabic word for God, was not the exclusive property of Muslims. A Christian monthly, the Herald, had decided it would use "Allah" to refer to God on the grounds that Christianity, Judaism and Islam were all Abrahamic faiths that worshipped the same deity in different ways. Tolerant Malaysian Muslims proceeded to fire-bomb Christian churches, as is done routinely in places such as Nigeria, Sudan and Indonesia.

The reaction of Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Cordoba Mosque to be built within earshot of Ground Zero, exhibits the double standard we tolerate.

"My message to the Christian community in Malaysia," Rauf said in reaction, "is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative. If you want to have influence with people in Malaysia, you must find a way to convey your message without provoking this kind of response."

Rauf sees no need to find a better way to convey this message of "outreach" in New York City. Neither does he mind being socially provocative to the families of the 9/11 victims or to the New Yorkers who can still remember the acrid smoke and the bodies falling from the sky.

Bad taste is bad taste, but in the democracies of the West bad taste is not a capital offense. The reaction when Andres Serrano submerged a crucifix in a vat of his own urine and called it "art" was a tad milder than that after cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Cars didn't burn in the streets of Manhattan, but they did in Paris...

To paraphrase President Obama, Pastor Jones has a legal right to do what he plans on doing, regardless of its wisdom. His critics, however, have no right to respond with violence.

File Under: You're Not Helping!

Election 2010: California Senate

Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer and her Republican challenger Carly Fiorina remain in a dead heat in California’s race for the U.S. Senate.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters, including leaners, shows Fiorina picking up 48% of the vote, while Boxer draws support from 47%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) remain undecided.

Police accuse Boxer aide of marijuana possession

An aide to Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer has been arrested on charges that he brought marijuana into a Senate office building.

The office of the California Democrat said Wednesday that 43-year-old Marcus Stanley has resigned as an economics adviser to Boxer.

A summary report provided by the U.S. Capitol Police alleges that an officer saw a man enter a Senate building on Tuesday and remove from his pocket a green leafy substance that later tested positive for the chemical compound in marijuana.