Fly Unzipped

Can someone explain why WAMC, that would be publicly supported radio with a (laughable) claim to nonpartisanship, is paying to send busloads of people to an openly-partisan, leftwing 'rally' on the eve of election day?

How many buses did they send to Glenn Beck's legitimately nonpartisan (but decidedly conservative-themed) rally not long ago?

Uh-huh. Exactly.

In case you're worried that I'm overreacting, liberal BS-meister and chief bottle washer at WAMC had this to say about organizing for a pre-election liberal pep rally: "This is not for everybody." The Gazette staffer tasked with making this look acceptable, Tatiana Zarnowski, offers up this fig leaf so ridiculous it'll probably bring tears to your eyes: Stewart's rally is billed for political moderates.

Totally time to stop forcing conservatives to fund liberal radio.

==
Update from Doug Powers at MichelleMalkin.com on what the MSM won't show you about the "nonpartisan" made-for-tv rally.

Times Union And Gazette Missing The Boat

So, as usual, I'm behind on reading the papers. But let's catch up a bit.

Both the Gazette and Times Union ran with reports that said in no uncertain terms that a MorOn nut that tried to rush at candidate Rand Paul had her head 'stomped on' or that a Paul supporter clearly had his 'foot on her head'.

They both ran this story. Apparently no one at either paper nor the source organization saw the actual video in question - because it is beyond obvious that no such thing happened. See for yourself, Jay Tea linked to the video here: link. Didn't happen. After she tried to, as it appeared at the time, attack Paul she was thrown to the ground and one guy, unnecessarily, pushed her down further with a foot on her shoulder. I'd say if they did see it and still allowed such BS to be published in their papers, then not only don't they know a head from a shoulder, but they don't know their ass from their elbow as the saying goes.

Next up, I'm not seeing anything in either paper about Obama declaring that the GOP, when it came to bipartisan leadership, "gotta sit in the back". I'll leave it to you to ask what the TU and Gazette editorial writers and columnists would have had to say if Bush had said that Pelosi "gotta sit in the back" after the 2006 elections. Hell, Strock would still be writing about it.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Finally, even the press is coming around and is realizing that Emperor Obama has no clothes. It took them long enough, but I guess we should appreciate the little things from the painfully-obvious-biased leftwing press. I guess the answer to how long they can take being lied to and repeating the lies is about 2 years. Here's to 2 more years of pointing out when their ex-infallible "god" lies and tries to get them to lie for him:

Obama: Appeals for common ground, yet jabs GOP

Whatever the outcome of Tuesday's election, it's time to put aside partisanship, President Barack Obama is telling Democrats and Republicans.

Yet his appeal for unity includes a jab at GOP leaders in the House and Senate for comments that the president said were troubling.

Let the water carrying end and maybe the American people will start trusting even the press again.

Clinton Admits Meddling In Another Race

Rest up, Rep. Issa, you're gonna be a busy man. Just when you thought he couldn't meddle enough, Clinton's back in the news...well, the underground sort of news. After already getting busted for trying to bribe a Democrat to drop out of a primary on behalf of the White House, Clinton has now admitted that he contacted a Democrat in Florida to drop out and endorse the liberal faux-Independent:

Former President Bill Clinton says he talked to Rep. Kendrick Meek about ending his bid for Senate twice, but that he never discussed the issue with the White House.

This time he at least had the 'good' sense to deny White House involvement - you know, all those tricky federal offenses that the first one brought up and such. You just know it's going to be good news when he shows up to try to save Scott Murphy's increasingly-burned bacon. Can you see November from your house, Bill?

My How Things Have Changed

May 4, 2009 - LA Times:

"If you're a comedian and you die and go to hell, Barack Obama is your president."

Obama has cast so many political humorists into a bad spot because he lacks the obvious defining qualities -- both mentally and physically -- that transformed previous Oval Office occupants into comedic catnip...

In fact, the CBS late-night host has used Obama to set up jabs at Bush...

Even "Saturday Night Live," which is renowned for its politically biting humor, has been mostly soft on Obama.

Jay Leno:

See, I got to admit, as a comedian, I'm gonna miss President Bush. Because Barack Obama is not easy to do jokes about. He doesn't give you a lot to go on.

About.com:

But when Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, the era of easy presidential punch lines may be coming to a close. As it has been widely noted in humor circles, Obama remains a tough target.

It turns out that if people had been listening to the right they would have known all along that the "humor" (if you can call it that) would be found in the ludicrous, outdated, and ineffective ideas he had, not in his appearance or speech patterns or occasional verbal faux pas (although he had plenty of those in all 57 states). Maybe they're finally getting it - that the thing to mock is the fact that his ideas are disproven failures and his execution has been one disaster after another:

Doing his now-routine riff of taking credit for preventing "a second Great Depression," the president claimed "we have done stuff that some folks don't even know about." Stewart countered that with: "What have you done that we don't know about? Are you planning a surprise party for us, filled with jobs and health care?"

Unemployment Spinning

MRC's BMI has a timely analysis on the way the networks spin unemployment figures depending on who's in charge of the government. Seriously, I just don't get how anyone can still deny liberal media bias:

During the year leading up to the 2005-06 mid-term elections, the economy was strong and unemployment never went above 5 percent. That wasn’t how the media reported it. Negative reports and stories spun negatively accounted for 58 percent of the stories (38 out of 65).

...Despite the near 10 percent unemployment throughout the year leading to the 2009-10 elections, positive reports and stories spun positively accounted for 52 percent of the stories (46 out of 88).

Just days before the mid-term elections and jobs remain the major campaign issue. Unemployment stands at 9.6 percent with nearly 15 million people out of work. Gallup’s analysis argues things are even worse, with unemployment hitting 10 percent again – a number voters wouldn’t see until the Friday after the election. As Gallup explained, it’s “up sharply from 9.4% in mid-September and 9.3% at the end of August.” That means heartache and struggle across the United States.

That’s not the story being told this election. What voters are left with are false impressions from the broadcast news shows – that somehow the worst unemployment in 25 years is not that bad. CNBC’s Steve Liesman called it “self-sustaining job growth,” on NBC’s April 2, 2010 “Nightly News.”...

The Business & Media Institute looked at “job” and “employment” stories around the delivery of each monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report. BMI analyzed morning and evening news shows in the 12 months from October through September of both 2005-2006 and 2009-2010.

During the year leading up to the 2006 mid-terms, reporters undermined positive stories nearly half the time (21 stories out of 46). Combined with negative stories, that gave a downbeat impression of a period where 2,215,000 jobs were created and unemployment barely touched 5 percent.

During an identical time period in the 2010 midterm elections, journalists worked hard at finding the positive news in otherwise strongly negative news. Forty percent of all negative stories (22 out of 55) were spun so that they included the “silver lining.” Coupled with other positive stories, that gave viewers a more upbeat impression of a year where unemployment either passed or neared 10 percent – twice what it had been in the previous mid-term...

We got the latest initial jobless claims this morning - another 434,000 initial jobless claims. The headlines, again seeking that silver lining in the loss of over 400 thousand jobs, tell us that this number is "sharply" down from last month. It is down down over 4% from last month, but as we approach 2 years into the Democrats spending spree that would 'fix' the economy that Bush and the GOP 'drove over a cliff', we're still seeing over 400,000 initial jobless claims each month. The AP's first paragraph:

Fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week, the second drop in a row and a hopeful sign the job market could be improving.

Just how many months have gone by since they started writing "could be improving" and "hopeful sign"? 8? 10? 12? Here's a hint to the press - if the GOP has a good showing next month then the job market will really improve. If the GOP has a tremendous showing, then we could be looking at a real upswing that otherwise will have to wait another 2 years.

Am I Overthinking This?

Let's see...

If anyone mentions the possibility that they might be thinking something vaguely religious on public property, a school, town hall, public park...

VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!!!

Hmmmm...

See, those that are better than you and I know that, despite the fact that the actual words aren't there, the first amendment, in restricting government control over religion, actually DEMANDS that never the twain shall meet.

Hmmmm...

But doesn't the first amendment also restrict government control over, say, the press?

Applying the most simple of logic learned in elementary school (ok, back when such things were taught in public schools), does it not also follow that there is a UNBREACHABLE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN PRESS AND STATE!!!?

I mean, they're both in the first amendment (actually the first amendment provides for double religious freedom vs. just one for the press). So, using this logic, if what the founders actually meant when they said 'the government shall keep their damned noses out of our press and religion' they actually meant 'never the twain shall meet', then doesn't that mean that the press should keep their damned noses out of government?

Just figured I'd pose the question about now when the papers are busily endorsing political candidates for government jobs in no uncertain terms - something that we've managed to forbid as a right to doubly-free religious institutions.

Hmmmm.

Your Helpful Pre-Voting Tip For Today

CBO Director Says ObamaCare Will Drive People From the Workforce

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said the most significant economic effect of President Barack Obama’s health care reform package will be to drive people out of the job market.

“For the economy outside the health sector, the most significant impact of the legislation will be through the labor market,” Elmendorf said on Oct. 22. “We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount that people choose to work.”...

He explained that people would choose not to work because they could subsist on the generous federal insurance subsidies and Medicaid payments contained in the health care overhaul.

“Some provisions of the legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, and other provisions will encourage them to work more,” he said, adding that “[t]he net reduction in the supply of labor is largely attributable to the substantial expansion of Medicaid and the provision of subsidies through the new insurance exchanges.”...

Already this year, major insurance companies, in anticipation of ObamaCare’s stringent regulations, stopped offering individual insurance policies for children.

In addition, McDonald’s and other large corporations signaled that they would have to stop offering health care coverage for their mostly hourly workers because of mandates in the new law that dictate how much premium revenue companies can put toward administrative and other expenses. McDonald’s was granted a waiver...

Elmendorf revealed that some of ObamaCare's so-called reforms may not be reforms at all. Analyzing the many provisions that are supposed to make health care more efficient and less expensive, Elmendorf said that there was little evidence any of them would actually work -- leading CBO to view their potential with skepticism...

Elmendorf also said it is doubtful that lawmakers will be able to carry out the law’s vision of slowing the growth of Medicare...

Keep this in mind the next time your liberal friend or family member trots out one of the misleading reports that a Dem has the CBO put together (like 'tell us how much we can save if we stop paying doctors for medicare visits so we can say we're saving that much off the deficit!') or when the press tries to tell you it is a "falsehood" to say that ObamaCare won't cut the deficit. It's right there in black and white, the CBO, alternatively touted as "the gold standard" or "nonpartisan" by the media when their reports suit their ends (see prior sentence) estimate that the hefty benefits (entitlements) of ObamaCare will drive people out of the workforce and put more people on, essentially, welfare where they can comfortably exist on the sweat of our brows. Go Galt, vote smart next week.

Independents Flock To Gibson

I haven't been posting much (or any?) of his stuff, but longtime hired gun strategist Dick Morris, who is currently pushing the GOP (frankly I have no clue where his loyalties actually lie, or if he has any) has been saying for weeks that the biggest risk to the GOP next month is in underconfidence.

He's not concerned that the GOP is dreaming of a win of X seats that will be 80% of X, but that they're dreaming of X and losing out on the chance of getting 130% of X. It goes like this - the GOP sees a race where their guy has a slight edge, so they keep pouring money into the race. From what Morris is seeing a race that already shows a slight edge for the R will almost certainly swing that way next month once the fired up conservatives turn out, the liberals don't, and the I's break right - hard. Or they see a close race, say 46%/45% either way. So they pour money at that race, again to eke out a win.

What Morris is saying is that in this climate (increasingly warm for liberal Democrats) that race is over, it will break R. So while the GOP is pouring money into races that look close in polls, they are not putting money in races where the R is running at say 35/45, essentially writing that one off. What he is saying is that in this climate that race is winnable. The party should be pulling their money out of races already in their column and helping a 30/45 candidate close the gap, or putting a 40/45 down candidate over the top.

Case in point - independents continue the trends from NJ, MA, and VA and are breaking, now that we come down to the wire, hard right:

...a new Siena Poll on the 20th Congressional District race shows quite a change in the tide.

The survey of likely voters released today finds Republican Chris Gibson has a nine point [lead] over Democratic Incumbent Scott Murphy, 51 to 42 percent.

Just last month Murphy was showing up a whopping 17 points - that's an astounding 26 point swing in one month. This close to election day an incumbent way under 50% with the challenger actually over 50%? So long, chainyanker (Murphy played all coy about going along with Obama and the rest of the Pelosi-ites, but in the end he fell into line and yanked all of his constituent's chains that thought he might actually vote the way the people he represented wanted him to). His support amongst independents, they report, has tumbled 9 points to 49%.

Where Does Tonko Stand?

You've probably heard the ads, they're all over the radio, with liberal Democrat Tonko's tagline about "moving forward - together".

Tonko has been a rubber stamp for the Obama / Pelosi policies of the past 2 years that have been crafted with zero Republican input, zero Republican amendments, zero Republican votes, zero Republican support. Yet Tonko wants you to believe that he believes that the only way to move forward is "together".

I guess his idea of "moving forward - together" is the same as his buddy Obama's version of "together":

"We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

So where do you sit, Paul Tonko? Do you sit in the front of bus with Obama and Pelosi in the 'liberal Democrats only' section with Obama and his "czars" that know better how to run our lives than we do...or do you believe that we must "move forward together"?

It's time to take a stand, Tonko - do you stand for "together" or do you stand for the unprecedented-in-modern-times partisanship and elitism of your party's leaders? Do you believe that the GOP, conservatives, and everyone that doesn't agree with everything you say "gotta sit in the back"? Will you tell the hard-working, inner-city black Schenectady resident struggling in Obama's economy that if they don't do what you and Obama tells them they "gotta sit in the back"?

Lying About Lies?

This is truly bizarre...5 Campaign Fibs About the Economy. US News & World Report is pretty much a parody now...anyway, it's insane that such nonsense would get coverage.

Here are five falsehoods being perpetrated by both parties:

The stimulus plan didn't work. Every Republican candidate got the memo: Campaigning against the $814 billion Recovery Act passed in February 2009 is a winner...

If the goal of the stimulus plan was to reverse the worst recession in 75 years by the time of the next election, then sure, it was a failure. But most mainstream economists believe the stimulus helped end the recession months, and perhaps years, sooner that it would have ended on its own...

Strike one, the goal WAS to "reverse" the recession. Note how desperately they grasp at the straw presented by moving the goalposts to claim this is a "falsehood" told by the right. Strike two, the recession officially ended in June 2009, we are told. Therefore it is utter nonsense to claim that a stimulus not even in effect could have ended it "months, and perhaps years" early. Completely bogus.

The [Democrats] / [Republicans] are driving the nation toward insolvency. They both are, and in more or less equal measure. In 2001, when George W. Bush took office and Republicans controlled Congress, the budget was essentially balanced and the total national debt was about $5.8 trillion...

Bullspit. Strike one: omission of accounting scandal. Strike two: omission of 9-11. Strike three: omission of the fact that the "essentially balanced" budget was in fact heading towards deficit as the economy entered a recession before Bush's first budget was in place.

Obama, in his first two years, has added about $3.2 trillion more to the national debt. There are plenty of caveats. The pace of debt expansion under Obama is obviously faster, but that's due to the stimulus and to a shrinking economy that still hasn't regained all the ground lost since the recession began in late 2007. And both presidents passed programs with costs still to be tallied in the future. Still, any politician charging the other party with excessive spending could--and should!--level the same accusation at his own party. Republicans and Democrats alike are addicted to spending money they don't have.

How, pray tell, is stating a prediction based on common assumptions (by either party) a "falsehood"? The answer, of course, is that it is not. If they are wrong, they are wrong. But they are not wrong because they know that the real debt will be different. This is the same 'logic' used to claim that "Bush lied" because he said that Iraq had WMDs (they did) when no 'massive stockpiles' were found - they call it a lie because the assumption based on best available information was wrong, even though they fail to show that Bush had information that showed otherwise.

Healthcare reform will cost $1 trillion. This is the premise behind Republican calls to repeal "Obamacare," the sweeping new healthcare reform law. Yet it's an extrapolation of an extrapolation, and only half the story at that. The Congressional Budget Office, the best source of data on the cost of healthcare reform, estimates that new government costs associated with reform between 2010 and 2020 will add up to about $1.2 trillion. That's the figure cited by critics of the plan. But CBO also says those costs will be offset by more than $1.3 trillion in cost savings and new revenue, which will lower the national debt by about $170 billion over that time period--not raise it. Accounting for just the costs, and not the offsets, is like calculating your household finances by adding up all your bills but leaving out the income used to pay for them...

Yes, and using CBO figures that in their own report they claim should not be counted on because the revenue and cost savings will never materialize, unlike the costs, is the only way this ridiculous piece of garbage can claim there is any sort of "falsehood" here. If you want to get fancy and get into the nitty gritty, then you have to get into all of it, not just the selective stuff you think makes you look clever.

The Democrats are vulnerable on healthcare reform because they started out saying they'd produce a bill that would help lower the overall cost of healthcare, and ended up with a plan that doesn't really do that. Plus some voters are opposed to any further government role in healthcare, whether it lowers costs or not. But for now, at least, the numbers show that Obama's plan won't add to the debt. (Check the figures yourself by going to Box 1-1 in CBO's August 2010 budget update.)

If you want to believe that Congress will **ck over Medicare doctors, then go ahead and agree that saying it's "true" that it won't add debt.

Wait to you get a load of this next one, it's a real doozy:

The Obama administration is crushing small business. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been running ads on behalf of some Republicans saying that healthcare reform has been "crushing small business with billions in penalties." That claim depends on what you consider "small." The healthcare reform law exempts most companies with 50 employees or fewer, and many such firms would even qualify for healthcare subsidies...But it hasn't repealed the claim, even though Politifact grades it as "false" on its Truth-o-meter...

So the only way they can make this a "falsehood" is by taking a general claim about the Obama administration and pretending that it is a specific claim about Obamacare. Clever. Most readers probably would never even notice.

The Democrats have created jobs. In a folksy new "white board" video, White House economic advisor Austan Goolsbee stands before a job-loss trendline that seems to show a sudden improvement once President Obama took office in January 2009...

Private-sector employment has started to tick up, but it's still being more than offset by cutbacks in government jobs--which means Goolsbee's bar graphs would be below the zero line for the last four months if he included all jobs, and not just private sector ones. And the overall job market is still in a huge hole, compared to where it was on Obama's first day. Democrats can crow about marginal job gains in this or that sector, but the economy won't bounce back for good until all the big sectors are adding jobs. Maybe the economy will cooperate by the next election.

And let's just ignore the fact that the rate of hiring is below the replacement rate, meaning that even as creation is "positive" it's still a net negative, even ignoring government jobs. So even the "falsehood" (that would be a whopping ONE falsehood they toss at Dems vs. FOUR for the GOP) they tag on the Dems they downplay. They also make the moronic assumption that the economy operates in a vacuum, cut off (maybe by a "wall of separation of economy and state"?) from what the government does when they claim that it will just sort of "cooperate" before the next election.

Damn, I feel stupider just for reading that and having to point these things out.

There Goes More Of Your Wealth Being Spread Around

So, thanks to Obey-Won and the Debt-i Knights driving the nation into the ground more of your wealth is being spread around. So, is that better for you? Obama said that spreading your wealth around would make things better for you. Pretty sweet, huh?

Free checking as we know it is ending...

Almost all of the largest U.S. banks are either already making free checking much more difficult to get or expected to do so soon, with fees on even basic banking services.

It's happening because a raft of new laws enacted in the past year, including the financial overhaul package, have led to an acute shrinking of revenue for the banks. So they are scraping together money however they can.

Translation: They're going to spread your wealth to people that would otherwise be paying fees for being less responsible than you are.

Bank of America (BAC), which does business with half the households in America, announced a dramatic shift in how it does business with customers. One key change: Free checking, a mainstay of American banking in recent years, will be nearly unheard of.

"I've seen more regulation in last 30 months than in last 30 years," said Robert Hammer, CEO of RK Hammer, a bank advisory firm. "The bottom line for banks is shifting enormously, swiftly and deeply, and they're not going to sit by twiddling their thumbs. They're going to change."

Soros Openly Buying Media Bias, Liberal Outrage M.I.A.

If a talk show host on Fox makes a conservative comment, not a reporter, but a commentator, or there is a *gasp* Republican interviewed who makes a conservative point, the left has a nutty claiming that Fox News is just a front for political activity...oddly enough funded by owner Rupert Murdoch...the Hillary Clinton supporter. But when socialist sugar daddy George Soros openly tries to buy off the news all they want to do is send him thank you notes:

Soros, the billionaire speculator famous for bankrolling leftist causes, recently declared he was through with politics this election season because "I don't believe in standing in the way of an avalanche," referring to the likely GOP victory in November.

The 80-year-old leftist didn't earn his $14 billion fortune making bad bets. So although he's given "only" $53,100 in 2010 to Democratic candidates and causes (and his 24-year-old son has donated $73,000), it's worth noting that Soros has shifted his attention to influencing the media message, with his cash following.

On Oct. 18, Soros donated $1.8 million to National Public Radio to hire 100 new reporters for a project targeting state governments called "Impact of Government."

With the news industry laying off reporters, his idea is to fill a gap in coverage with all these spare journalists. But the new jobs won't precisely amount to truly independent ones — the reporters will have implicit obligations to Soros, who signs their paychecks...

Days after the Soros windfall was announced, National Public Radio fired liberal news analyst Juan Williams after he expressed an inoffensive personal view on the popular Fox News Channel...

If it sounds far-fetched, then how does one explain that Soros also made his first direct donation to Media Matters last week, reportedly at $1 million, just after donating to NPR?

Led by disgraced journalist David Brock, Media Matters is a fringe-left nuisance organization that spends much of its time trying to dig up dirt on Fox News. Its Web site actually has a whole section devoted to criticizing Fox opinions and claiming they are lies.

The value to Soros is that it drives the news narrative leftward and attracts attention to its left-leaning message. After all, there's nothing the mainstream media in its vanity likes more than someone writing about it.

Yet another Soros donation worth noting came in September, when he shoveled $100 million to the nongovernmental organization Human Rights Watch. It came shortly after HRW's then-operations director, Suzanne Nossell, was caught on a secretive list called JournoList actively plotting with other Soros-funded leftists to smear the political campaign of then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin...

More Timely Info On A NY Candidate

You want to know the best part of this? Even if you sat NY down and explained this so they could all understand it...they'd still vote for the Democrat:

The Hill newspaper reported October 20th that New York Senator Charles Schumer went on a spending spree trying to help his Democratic Senate colleagues keep their seats to the tune of over $2 million. Additionally, Schumer gave $250,000 he collected from others to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and cut five figure checks to various state Democratic Party organizations around the country.

The real question is who gave Schumer the money to spread around the country.

OpenSecrets.com reveals that the number one industry donating to Schumer is: the financial services industry — also known as Wall Street. That’s right — Wall Street, the exact people that the Senate Democrats have spent the past two years vilifying. Now, their money is coming to the Democrats’ rescue like the cavalry in an old western.

Even more incredible is that Schumer got the most cash from Paulson & Company. If that name seems familiar, it is because John Paulson is the same guy whose mortgage packaging bond deal ended up getting Goldman Sachs indicted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The indictment was used by Senate Democrats as the launch point for their legislation that effectively took over the financial services industry...

Yup...we're a laughingstock, alright. Go, NY!

IBD Goes After 'Housing Crisis Cause' Cuomo

Full item here: Cuomo's Quotas

Andrew Cuomo is running for governor of a state whose economy he helped sink when he ran the agency regulating Fannie and Freddie's "affordable housing" mission.

The Democratic candidate's role in the subprime mortgage scandal has not come out in New York's gubernatorial debates or in the media. But he's a chief reason Fannie and Freddie invested so heavily in the subprime loans still plaguing the mortgage giants and the overall economy.

As HUD secretary from 1997 to 2001, Cuomo pushed government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie to buy more home loans to low-income borrowers with impaired credit, in an attempt to end what he thought was lending discrimination against minorities. By 1999, they had committed $1 trillion in such high-risk loans.

But Cuomo still was not happy. So in 2000, he hiked their affordable-housing quota to 50%. That meant Fannie and Freddie had to devote fully half their mortgage financing to "underserved" borrowers with unproven or damaged credit. To help them meet that drastic new goal, Cuomo pressured them to relax their lending criteria and invest in subprime loans. He also authorized them to buy subprime securities.

This isn't ancient history. The quota Cuomo set in 2000 remained in force through 2004 and beyond. Four years after he required Fannie and Freddie to commit half their lending to support affordable housing, they together commanded almost half the subprime securities market...

Ex-Fannie chief credit officer Ed Pinto blames Cuomo for the mess. He says he and other HUD officials "should have known the risks were large," adding that "Cuomo was pushing mortgage bankers to make loans and basically saying you have to offer a loan to everybody." Why? Because like Bill Clinton, whose housing policies he was following, Cuomo championed the faulty notion that "racist" bankers erected barriers to minority homebuyers, creating a "mortgage gap." And he was hellbent on closing it.

In 1998, Cuomo announced details of a settlement he'd struck with a mortgage lender HUD he probed for alleged lending bias. The deal included a record multibillion-dollar loan commitment to minorities. Cuomo admitted the borrowers "would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank." He also expected higher default rates from the loans he mandated...

Remarkably, Cuomo so far hasn't had to answer for his scandalous past at HUD in his race against Republican challenger Carl Paladino. Only the Village Voice has looked into his role in the subprime scandal...

ReVolting

Volt Fraud At Government Motors

Government Motors' all-electric car isn't all-electric and doesn't get near the touted hundreds of miles per gallon...

Advertised as an all-electric car that could drive 50 miles on its lithium battery, GM addressed concerns about where you plug the thing in en route to grandma's house by adding a small gasoline engine to help maintain the charge on the battery as it starts to run down. It was still an electric car, we were told, and not a hybrid on steroids.

That's not quite true. The gasoline engine has been found to be more than a range-extender for the battery. Volt engineers are now admitting that when the vehicle's lithium-ion battery pack runs down and at speeds near or above 70 mph, the Volt's gasoline engine will directly drive the front wheels along with the electric motors. That's not charging the battery — that's driving the car.

So it's not an all-electric car, but rather a pricey $41,000 hybrid that requires a taxpayer-funded $7,500 subsidy to get car shoppers to look at it. But gee, even despite the false advertising about the powertrain, isn't a car that gets 230 miles per gallon of gas worth it?

We heard GM's then-CEO Fritz Henderson claim the Volt would get 230 miles per gallon in city conditions. Popular Mechanics found the Volt to get about 37.5 mpg in city driving, and Motor Trend reports: "Without any plugging in, (a weeklong trip to Grandma's house) should return fuel economy in the high 30s to low 40s."

Car and Driver reported that "getting on the nearest highway and commuting with the 80-mph flow of traffic — basically the worst-case scenario — yielded 26 miles; a fairly spirited backroad loop netted 31; and a carefully modulated cruise below 60 mph pushed the figure into the upper 30s."...

In 2008, candidate Obama pledged to put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. Not likely. It was a tough sell when we thought it was all-electric and could get 230 mpg. It will be a tougher sell now that we find it's a glorified Prius with the price tag of a BMW that seats only four because of a battery that runs down the center of the car.

President Obama likes to talk about not giving the GOP back the keys to the car. It's his industrial policy and central planning that have driven us into the ditch.

Put it in 'R'! Put it in 'R'! Remember in November!

Elitists Spin Leftwarder And Leftwarder

The following bit of nonsense apparently qualifies at headline news for leftists and elitists: Church, State and the First Amendment: What O’Donnell needs to know

Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's question "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" in an exchange Oct. 19 over teaching creationism in public schools tells us something about her but also reminds us of how often America's bedrock principles on government and religion are misunderstood.

Democratic candidate Chris Coons was quick to tell O'Donnell that religion and government are kept separate by the First Amendment.

"You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" she responded.

Indeed it is.

Funny, I can read the Constitution and its amendments rather easily. You can read it, too. Now bear in mind the "exclusive" genius that wrote this actually claims to be from a "First Amendment Center", yet in his very next line claims this:

Here's a quick take on what the First Amendment says -- and doesn't say:

Keeping government out of religion and religion out of government is a core principle of the First Amendment.

Huh?

The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means government can't limit our personal faith or favor one religion over others. It also means that creationism cannot be taught in America's public schools.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that anywhere, Mr. First Amendment Center. But wait, he goes on to stroke liberal ego's with more lies:

The separation of church and state has been a cornerstone of American ideals for centuries.

Still and all, after claiming that the statement is in there, "Indeed it is" he claims, he then refutes himself by saying:

The words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. That's true, and O'Donnell's camp now says that's what she really meant.

OH! Busted...and the liberal spin goes for a roll. Taken in context, which this piece of BS never does, it is abundantly clear what she meant at the time, forget about "now says". That is, to be blunt, bullspit. But just when you didn't think he could get it more wrong:

The phrase stemmed from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. He cited the language of the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church and State." This was not just some poetic flourish. This was one of the nation's founders and author of the Declaration of Independence explaining exactly what the First Amendment means.

Funny, that's not what I'm seeing here by someone with better creds than Mr. First Amendment Center:

The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism.

And, of course, this is just a poke in the eye:

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition...

But it will be of considerable interest in assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt at enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed.

And, finally, Captain First Amendment manages to note, after getting most of his piece wrong, that when O'Donnell followed up on the point (again, at the time vs. "now", further exposing the lie) and asked her opponent, the mighty and infallible marxist democrat to name the freedoms listed in the first amendment to the Constitution...he could not.

Flipping over to the near side of sanity, IBD punches down the elitist know-it-alls know-nothings thusly:

A law school audience fell into fits of laughter when a Senate candidate asked, "Where in the Constitution is separation of Church and State?" In fact, the phrase is nowhere in the document.

Tuesday's debate between Delaware's U.S. Senate hopefuls before what was described as a crowd of "legal scholars and law students" at Widener University Law School in Wilmington generated quite some mirth among the assembled elites.

Tea Party-favored Republican nominee Christine O'Donnell had the temerity to ask her opponent to cite the provision of the Constitution that separates church and state.

There is, of course, no such passage. Those scoffing law scholars might want to look at the Constitution's unadorned text instead of the judicial activist law review articles that take up so much of their day.

What the Constitution does say, in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" — a restriction imposed upon the state to prevent its interference in religious practice...

Maybe we should start calling the First Amendment's Establishment Clause the "Free Exercise of Religion Clause"— since that's what its plain language protects. Perhaps then there would be fewer false decrees from judges and fewer laughs when a citizen politician states a constitutional truth.

How Timely

First, let me make it clear that I am not Catholic. This post is for informational purposes only and so as to make clear the way media has portrayed people as it regards their adherence to their self-professed religion vs. how they treat other politicians and the way they adhere to their self-professed religion.

That out of the way, and in light of the juvenile antics of last night's gubernatorial debate moderators ending with a needless gay marriage question, this seems timely for those attacking Carl Paladino's freedom of religion:

Vatican's Chief Justice: Catholic Politicians Who Support Abortion or Gay Marriage Must Publicly Repent

Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion or homosexual marriage and then seek to turn away from such “gravely sinful acts” must perform “public” actions of “repentance,” said Raymond Burke, the archbishop emeritus of St. Louis and the current head of the highest court at the Vatican, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

In remarks at the 5th Human Life International World Prayer Congress for Life in Rome, Italy, Arbp. Burke said that the culture today pushes a “cafeteria Catholicism,” whereby some Catholics pick and choose “what part of the deposit of faith to believe and practice.” As a result, “there has developed in places a false notion that the Christian or any person of faith, in order to be a true citizen of his nation, must bracket his faith life from his public life.”

“We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage,” said the archbishop. “It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself publicly in this manner.”

Bear in mind that Andrew Cuomo puts himself forth both as a Roman Catholic and a 'strong supporter of gay marriage'. You can click through for his take on a similar politician.

This Is A Debate?

So I'm watching the uh, debate amongst the 7 candidates for governor. A few observations:

* It would be nice if they answered the questions. I make it about 3% of them actually answering a question asked. I feel for the small business owner who had a great question, they came and filmed him asking it and everything...and none of them even remotely addressed it.

* Why does this state have so many communists running for governor? I figure at least 3 of these guys are communists...the too damn high rent nut, the green nut, and the winner of the most inapt name of a party award - the freedom party nut, mao jacket and all. The answers from all of them are all the same - tax the rich more, which will solve apparently all of our problems.

* The high rent nut, about 8:05, isn't even saying real words anymore.

* I find it endlessly entertaining that the worst of the communists up there is representing the freedom party. If you're going to advocate for the enslavement of your fellow man, I guess you'd better represent the freedom party.

* Hey, Warren...you forgot about the $10,000 Cuomo took from corrupt "Hillraiser" Hsu.

* I see they're letting the audience ask questions - I should have gotten in on this, I've got a great question:

Many of you are telling us that hiking taxes on the rich, getting them to pay, as you say, their "fair share", you tell us that this will solve every problem, from high rent to more greenyness. Can you tell us why these fat cat, greedy, money-grubbing rich people that only care about money will remain in New York to pay these confiscatory taxes instead of simply moving elsewhere? If you haven't made such a stupid claim, feel free to use your time to laugh at the nuts.

* Thank you all for confirming that I will be NV'ing the guv line next month. How pathetic. One of the largest, most populous states with one of the largest, most cosmopolitan cities in the nation...and with seven people running representing seven different (ostensibly) parties there isn't a single person I can back to lead the state.

(Should anyone wonder why this conservative isn't backing Cuomo who is running on a platform of lower taxes, controlling spending, and ending corruption...well, it's simple. I think he's lying. And the corrupt legislature would never go along with any of it even if he wasn't.)

Turnabout

Obama: Economy hurting Democratic candidates (AP)

Well, it's only fair given what they've done to the economy.

We Have Nothing To Fear, But Republicans Themselves!

Time for another installment of Democrats playing on fears. This one is from none other than the one we have been waiting for, Captain Cool Kool himself, Obey-Won mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein mmm mmm mm Obama, Mr. Hope and Change:

This is a threat to our democracy. ... And if we just stand by and let the special interests to silence anybody who's got the guts to stand up to them, our country's going to be a very different place.

This dire threat to democracy itself? Public opposition to our Democrat overlords. Not voting against these vicious bastards and voting for Obama's Debt-i Knights will make our country "a very different place"!

Yeah, a better one.

--

Nice glob of hypocrisy that Brent adds to this column, too:

It began when Citizens United tried to buy pay-per-view cable time to air "Hillary: The Movie." Their free-speech rights were crushed by the FEC, and then by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which said the McCain-Feingold campaign law prohibited its airing within 30 days of a Democratic primary election. Whose voices were being drowned out in this democracy? Relief from the courts didn't come during the campaign, when it really mattered. Justice came long after that campaign was history.

By contrast, powerful Hollywood leftists had no problem getting their documentaries with political overtones widely distributed in theatres as Citizens United was being squashed. In the summer of 2007, Michael Moore's health care mockumentary, "Sicko," was shown on more than 1,100 screens. In the fall of 2008, Bill Maher's noxious atheist documentary, "Religulous," was spread across America on more than 500 screens. Even this fall, anchors like Harry Smith are already promoting the ridiculous Valerie Plame "docudrama" titled "Fair Game," complete with sound bites of her real-life congressional testimony. Those evil-Bush-years commercials will run in the campaign's final weeks without a single reporter batting an eye.

And guess who's financed that "Fair Game" movie? A film company named Imagenation Abu Dhabi. The executive producer is Mohamed Khalaf al-Mazrouei, chairman of the Abu Dhabi Media Company. But Obama won't be pounding the podium against that foreign influence.

Ann Marie Buerkle for Congress

I received an email from the Ann Marie Buerkle for Congress campaign. Ann Marie is running against Congressman Dan Maffei in central NY. Ann Marie is a nurse and attorney and mother of 6 and appears to be a common-sense conservative.

I do not endorse candidates, however I am more than willing to offer my opinion of candidates and, after reading through Ann Marie's policy statements on her campaign website, she looks like a great person to have in DC representing NY vs. another vote for Pelosi and Obama's destructive agenda (note that, given his limited service, the ACU does not currently have a rating for Maffei).

Some of the best of what I see:

Ann Marie Buerkle wants taxpayer money to be spent on education on the state and local level so that our teachers and schools have the resources they need. Since its founding in 1980, the Department of Education has spent billions of taxpayer dollars with absolutely no positive effect on the reading and math scores of our nation’s children. Ann Marie Buerkle wants to hold the Department of Education to task for creating more government with few results...

I’m a proud signer of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge which binds me to oppose federal tax increases...

I’m a nurse. I’m a health care attorney. I’m a mom.

I know personally that our current medical system is troubled, but the recently enacted so-called “health care reform” represents no real reform at all. It’s a victory for big government; it’s an affront to our Constitution...

I’m not advocating doing nothing. I’m advocating doing better...

The federal government fulfills many vital roles in American society from providing for the common defense to ensuring a stable infrastructure for the relationship between sovereign states. However, when government ceases to be the servant of its people and becomes the master instead, its people can no longer be called truly free...

As the mother of six, it pains me that five of my children work and live with their families out of state due to better career opportunities elsewhere. And now, just as Albany’s freewheeling approach to the spending of taxpayer dollars has damaged the Central and Western New York economies, similar attitudes in Washington are laying waste to the national economy.

Government doesn’t create jobs, small businessmen and women do. So it only makes sense that we lower the costs of doing business and let individuals keep more of what they make in order to encourage entrepreneurship, investment, and sustainable economic growth...

Americans aren’t safe at home if the government isn’t protecting our borders and stopping terrorists by any means lawful. Moreover, terrorists need to be treated for what they are – enemy combatants. As such they are not covered under the U.S. Constitution and aren’t entitled to Miranda rights and expensive trials in Manhattan – courtesy of the American taxpayer...

For balance, I headed over to Maffei's campaign site. It also talks about issues.

On "economic recovery", he opens with a quote from the architect of the Great Depression, FDR. How encouraging. He goes on to, and I'm sorry to be so blunt, but he goes on to lie about the state of our nation in 2009. Unemployment, he claims, was near "all-time highs". Not even close. At the unemployment height of this Democrat-induced recession the unemployment rate has not even reached the highs seen in the recession of the early '80s, forget about the 25% seen at our "all-time high". He touts a bill he "unveiled" that he claims will create jobs - by taxing corporations. He applauds the disastrous and ineffective stimulus.

On "help for the middle class", he, again, I am being blunt, lies about the tax cuts enacted in the early 00's that helped our economy recover from the triple blast of a tech-bubble recession, the accounting scandals, and of course the 9-11 attacks. He claims that only "millionaires got big tax breaks, while middle class families got lip service". He says he is "a proud co-sponsor of Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights", that would be the bill that may have caused your credit card company to cut your rewards as mine did. Thanks, Dan. Additionally, he is proud of the ~$20/month 'tax cut' that has us all lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills, yet another bill to directly funnel more taxpayer money to colleges and forcibly spreading your and my wealth around to new homebuyers.

On "green jobs" he trumpets $2.54 million dollars in pork.

On "financial regulation" he is proud to say that he support a bigger government to 'control' us and 'protect us from ourselves'. Somehow he doesn't find any government liability for the recession.

And on "healthcare reform" he is pleased as punch to have voted against the wishes of a majority of Americans. I guess he didn't get the memo from Democrat HQ, because he is still saying that there won't be changes (for a "majority") to our health care (already disproven), discusses the 'pre-existing kids covered' nonsense (already disproven, insurers are simply stopping insuring kids to avoid this ludicrous requirement), implies that costs will be controlled (already disproven, insurers are cranking up rates in response to this ludicrous law), and astonishingly repeats the nonsense about it 'cutting the deficit' - I guess he'll be voting against any doc fix...and he closes with this nonsense:

The scare tactics and “sky is falling” rhetoric surrounding this bill have been an unfortunate sideshow...

Better pick up a paper, Dan, all the things we warned you about before you voted are coming true. There's a sign ahead, 'Watch for falling sky' - you should be getting to it right about November 2.

Awesome

I'm not a Bill O'Reilly fan ('smug' does nothing for me), but this is just awesome:

"The View" co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar stormed off the set Thursday during a contentious interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.

As the cast debated whether there should be a community center and mosque built in Lower Manhattan, O'Reilly declared that "Muslims killed us on 9/11" to back up his position that it's "inappropriate."

"Oh my God!" Goldberg responded, before uttering a few words bleeped out.

"Muslims didn't kill us on 9/11?" O'Reilly responded. "Is that what you're saying?"...

...Behar and Goldberg then left the studio.

So sweet to see the utter contempt (as opposed to the lies they tell about how they support these things) the left has for discussion, tolerance, opposing viewpoints, free speech, debate, and facts. Love that one of them couldn't even hear a common-sense, factual statement that so conflicts with the alternate universe in which they live (where the JOOOOOOOS!!!! actually committed 9/11 I guess) without cursing on daytime TV.

Sweet, Bill. Sweet. Any way you could get those two to permanently walk off the set of our TVs?

Michele Bachmann Obliterates NBC's Meredith Vieira

Suh-weet!

NBC's Vieira Fails to Knock Michele Bachmann Off Her Game

Just go read the whole thing. It's called 'staying on point' and she nails it. If the GOP is sending candidates and officeholders to classes with Bachmann and Chris Christie they should be ashamed of themselves.

Sunburned

Look out Mr. Turtle!! Run - the green police are coming! C'mon...run? Mr. Turtle? Trot, maybe? Couldn't you maybe...oh, forget it.

Government will shut off water to farmers to protect a 3-inch bait fish for ecological reasons. Yet it has no problem uprooting a threatened species to make room for a trendy green energy project.

The tiny, inedible delta smelt falls under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. It is so important that in 2007 a federal judge ordered water streaming from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River routed away from California farmers because the pumps used to redirect the flow were killing the fish. Job and financial losses naturally followed the judge's decision...

Man is often shackled for the benefit of the goddess Earth. But apparently there are exceptions in which a threatened species can be evicted from its habitat. In the desert of San Bernardino County, tortoises are being removed so that "an estimated 17 federally threatened tortoises — and an unknown number of half-dollar-sized hatchlings" won't be " squashed by heavy equipment" at the construction site of a 3,280-acre solar energy plant, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Despite the effort, some of the lumbering land turtles, threatened or not, will have their often 100-year-plus life spans cut short by the weight of a bulldozer. "We can never say we got them all out of there — these are cryptic creatures," a Fish and Wildlife Service official told the Times.

Even those spared a crushing end might not survive. Tortoise translocation has "a dismal track record," says the Times. The turtles tend "to wander, sometimes for miles, often back toward the habitat in which they were found." Worse, the "stress of handling and adapting to unfamiliar terrain renders the reptiles vulnerable to potentially lethal threats" from dogs, ravens, coyotes, respiratory disease, dehydration and vehicles.

Latest Leftist Meme Goes Up In Flames

(originally posted 10/11/10 - see update below)

Well, you have to give them credit for trying lying. The left, including President Obey-Won mmm mmm mmm's White House, echoed of course in the media and by the MorOn moonbats, is that the US Chamber of Commerce is illegally using, dum dum dum, foreign money to fund attacks on Democrats (who otherwise would be doing swimmingly this fall, I guess).

Well, that's not going so well. Not even the sometimes-reliable press is going along with it. Even the NY Times declared it a bogus charge.

The New York Times concluded on Friday that “there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents. In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.”

Oops. Even the ludicrous Bob Schieffer at See-BS called out s**t-slinger David Axelrod for continuing to make the claim after it was debunked by Obey-Won's biggest cheerleaders. Michelle also has a nice summary of the lengthy history of troubling foreign donations to Democrats up - and it's only the recent past!

--
update

This column contains all the gory details that completely destroy this pathetic lie the President is pushing: Exclusive: The Chamber's "Secret" Donations List, I suggest reading it all, or at least skimming through it to see how many ways the Democrats are wrong and lying - the excerpt here has but the barest bones to tempt you to go read the details:

After an exhaustive investigation of all available public records, Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau has uncovered the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “secret” donation list. In recent days, Barack Obama has accused the Chamber of accepting foreign donations to influence the elections, which would be a violation of the law.

“You don't know,” Obama told a Philadelphia rally for Joe Sestak. “It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose.”

Only, they do have to disclose. Obama’s statement is actually provably false. You see, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce actually operates a political action committee, which is required to file reports with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)...

While it is true that the Chamber’s 501(c)6 filings are not public, that does not mean such disclosures do not exist. Many of them actually should already be available to the Obama Administration...

Organizations must file form 990’s, which include Schedule B’s for disclosing donations over specified amounts depending on the type of organization. Minimum net donations which must be included in the forms can range from $1,000 to $5,000, depending on the group.

If the Obama Administration has reason to believe that the Chamber — or any other organization — is using foreign donations to engage in electioneering, it could have the IRS simply conduct an audit, which would quickly get to the truth of the matter...

There’s also another problem with the Center’s claims: It presents no proof. The ads the Center links to as being “electioneering” do not appear to be election ads...

If there was a claim of a violation of the law on this count, that too could easily be investigated by the IRS, along with any suspected foreign donations being used for electioneering...

If Obama has any evidence that foreign donations have been used for electioneering, he has the full weight of the executive branch and the law behind him to prosecute any potential lawbreakers. He has not done so.

Every day Obama does not file legal action makes it appear that he just made it up. If there is no evidence — which appears to be the case — Obama owes the Chamber an apology. And if there is never was any evidence, Obama should also be investigated by Congress for using the threat of legal action to intimidate perceived political opponents.

Piling on:

President Obama has doubled down in his attack on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, continuing to call its ads foreign-funded. His charges are false and he knows it. If this isn't beneath his office, what is?

One needs to look hard to find any head of a major democracy as openly at war with his country's Chamber of Commerce as Obama is. His charge that the Chamber's $75 million ad campaign ahead of elections is funded by foreign sources is both false and an unprecedented smear, an accusation of a crime...

Based on a blog post from the Center for American Progress, Obama now calls the Chamber's ad campaign in defense of free markets not protected speech but "a threat to democracy." His embattled party still repeats the scurrilous claim that the Chamber's ads are foreign-funded because it receives a small amount ($100,000) of dues from overseas companies. But nearly all of these businesses are based in the U.S., and their dues are separated from ad funds. The White House knows this — or at least, should.

As the media, including the New York Times, gave this a good debunking, Obama refrained from continuing his charges Monday.

But his lieutenant, Vice President Joe Biden, "didn't get the memo," as Lucianne Goldberg quipped on her Web site. So Biden continues the dishonest line of attack...

Is this what we've come to? A presidential enemies list, Alinskyite tactics targeting individuals one by one and, in this attack on the Chamber, a propaganda war against the private sector?

Unintended Consequences

So I see a lone judge in California that thinks they're too clever by half has decided, all on their own, to 'suspend' 'don't ask, don't tell' for the entire nation.

I don't think they thought this through.

The military very specifically denies homosexuals entry.

DADK was put into place to give homosexuals a back door into the military. By requiring that no one be asked their sexual orientation, assuming the person could resist openly having homosexual relations in front of others in the military, they could serve in the military. If they talked about being a homosexual or were found having homosexual relations, they were removed from the service.

So what this judge has done is make it, again, such that homosexuals cannot serve in the military. They did not, and probably cannot, remove the requirement that homosexuals not be allowed to serve, so all they've done is lock the back door.

But I'm sure that's not how this will be spun, not what the judge meant to happen, and not how it will be interpreted.

Oh, and that illusory 'momentum' the Democrats were regaining before the elections? Yeah, kiss that goodbye. The judge might as well have put gay marriage on the ballots again nationwide.

We Have Nothing To Fear, But Republicans Themselves!

Oh sure, you've heard it. Over and over the media, and Democrats (forgive the redundancy), like to talk about how the GOP is the party that is always trying to 'scare' voters and win votes through fear.

First, we're going to ignore the wild campaign cries of the left about 'turning back the clock' if the GOP is elected to any office from dog catcher on up, whipping up the elderly with claims that the GOP wants to take away their Social Security checks, no money for food stamps if the GOP is elected, Obey-Won's latest smearing lying scam that the GOP is planning to slash education funds (they aren't, but they should), etc etc etc. Let's ignore those for now and focus on specific examples, in fact I'm making a new post label, 'Fear', to track these examples. Because, hey, what better way to refute someone than by throwing their own words back in their lying face?

In this case we get a nice fat fish to fry - none other than Pennsylvania Governor and former Democrat Party Chairman Ed Rendell who flaps his lips to utter the following:

Well, the President's got dual roles, he's the commander-in-chief and he sets policy, like the infrastructure conference today, but he's also the campaigner-in-chief. And his goal in this campaign is to get Democrats off their duff and get them to the polls. And sometimes you do that by talking not only about the good things that Democrats have done in the Congress, and he sure as heck spends plenty of time talking about those, but also about what's to be afraid of. And the influence of outside money, the unreported money that's coming into this campaign through groups that we'll never know who contributed to, that's something our citizens should be worried about.

Nice, huh? The former Democrat Party Chairman claims that the Obama will accomplish his "goal" as "campaigner-in-chief" by telling voters "what's to be afraid of"...of course that would be Republicans and *gasp*! "outside money"! The horror!

Of course he also slips in a lie that the See-BS newsreader does not question, namely that donations will not be tracked. The tracking of donations hasn't changed anytime in the recent past, everybody that legally donates to a campaign still has to be reported, same as in 2008 with everybody that contributed to McCain and contributed to Obama (whoops, we all know about those untraceable foreign donations that Obama raked in).

His claims actually get worse:

Well, but, I think, Maggie, you know, for example, that Crossroads and groups like that are putting millions of dollars into this campaign and under the Citizens United decision, they don't have to report who gave the money.

Does "Maggie" question this Democrat Governor and former Democrat party head? She does not. As everybody that isn't fooled by the Democrat lies knows, Citizens United did not affect campaign contribution reporting by a single iota, not one jot, not a tad, not a bit. Citizens United had exactly, precisely, factually not. one. thing. to do with contribution reporting. This is an utter, baseless, damnable lie by the former head of the Democrats. The best/worst part is that he said this in response to good ole Maggie saying that it was "not right" for the President to be making baseless claims to scare people!

How does good ole Maggie respond to a new lying, baseless accusation told in response to her question about baseless accusations?

Let's say that that's happening.

Seriously? Well, OK, let's just pretend that your lying, baseless, unsubstantiated claim is true, Mr. Democrat governor...

This is spun as somewhat positive, that a news-type actually questions the left on these baseless smears told to frighten people - but all it actually is is giving the left the chance to deny their lie without evidence and tell more lies without being challenged.

Press Doggedly Totes Obama's Water

The smell of desperation is in the air...within days I think we can expect to see Obama and his press poodles claiming that if the GOP is returned to a Congressional majority that food stamps will be eliminated, heating aid for the elderly will instead be given as handouts to billionaires, Social Security will be cut (no wait, they're already claiming that), school lunch aid will be cut to give handouts to BIG OIL, and children will be baked into sausages.

The current big ass lie that they're telling is that the GOP is planning to cut education. Obama is claiming it and the press is repeating it without question. Go ahead, imagine what the press would say if the GOP was claiming that the Democrats were going to cut education if elected. Do you think they'd repeat it without questioning it? They're actually making the claim that this is an actual plank in the GOP platform...despite the teeny-weeny little fact that such a thing is nowhere to be found in the GOP pledge. The Democrats and their lap poodles are simply making the claim without foundation and despite the fact that it is an obvious lie. I mean, look at this nonsensical crap:

Obama hits GOP proposal to cut education spending

Can you effing believe this? THERE IS NO GOP PROPOSAL TO CUT EDUCATION SPENDING. This is utterly and completely baseless. 100%. Within the story, where they hope you will not look or will just 'take their word for it' you find the 'basis' for their story:

Obama has spent much of the past two weeks contrasting a GOP proposal to cut spending, presumably including on education, with the billions of dollars he's investing to improve learning from kindergarten through college.

That's it. THIS is the basis for their claim...because the GOP wants to cut spending "presumably" they will cut education.

Effing pathetic. These people, both those making the claim and those publishing it for them, should be fired. There is no place for this in America.

Your Random Saturday

I won't bother even rehashing, this column by Michelle Malkin is pretty much all meat - detailing the history of shady real estate dealings by prominent democrats as the press tries to demonize a Senate candidate in DE for having mortgage problems (the question is, why didn't she just get some wealthy donor to 'help her out' like Democrats do?)

Sad truths from Dennis Prager:

All Americans, including conservatives, understand why any leftist would vote Democrat this year. The Democratic Party is now America's version of a European Social Democratic or even Green Party. In domestic policy, there is no significant difference between the American and European parties.

So there is no question as to why those on the left would vote Democrat. There is, however, a legitimate question regarding non-leftist Americans -- why would any of them vote for a Democrat this year?...

The answer lies in emotion. For many non-leftist Democrats, it is emotionally impossible to vote Republican...

That is how liberals, not to mention leftists, think: It is a grievous sin to vote Republican (unless the Republican is a liberal). One is abandoning their faith, values, community and very identity.

But it is more than that. What keeps most non-leftists voting Democrat (and calling themselves liberal) has been the spectacularly effective saturation of virtually all media and all educational institutions with the message that the right is mean spirited and dangerous.

One of the first books I ever owned -- in high school -- was titled "Danger on the Right." Throughout the world, people are fed the message "Danger on the Right" -- and virtually never "Danger on the Left," despite the left's far bloodier and more totalitarian record...

...But the most important is to keep non-leftists in fear of anyone who opposes the left. In effect, the left says, and has been saying for a hundred years, "You may not agree with us, but our opponents are evil."

The Democratic appeal to black voters provides an excellent example. In nearly half a century, the left has done nothing for black America. Leftists have ruined the cities they govern and most of the public schools they control. But they have mastered one thing -- the ability to paint their opponents as racist opponents of blacks. So, blacks, many of whom have conservative values -- from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting school vouchers -- vote almost universally for the left.

The same holds true of most American Jews. Most live profoundly conservative lives but vote left. Why? Overwhelmingly because they believe there is "Danger on the Right." It doesn't matter how anti-Israel the left is and how pro-Israel the right is, or that liberal Time magazine has a mendacious cover story on "Why Israel Doesn't Care about Peace," while every major conservative periodical is passionately protective of Israel. For most Jews, voting Republican is a far greater sin, emotionally, morally and socially than eating ham.

That is why virtually every liberal columnist at The New York Times has described political opposition to Barack Obama as racist. The left cannot win on arguments. It must demonize its opponents. From Stalin calling Trotsky a Fascist to Frank Rich labeling the tea parties as mimicking the Nazis' Kristallnacht, this has been the favored leftist method of achieving power. And that is why it remains so hard for most Democrats to vote what they believe and vote Republican -- a lifetime of demonization has worked.

Leftism's Rejection

Look no further for the ongoing rejection of leftism than the non-science Nobels awarded this year. The recent past has seen this once-august body award prizes to terrorists, pornographers, and an unaccomplished sub-one-term Senator. Well, the worldwide rejection of these philosophies, beginning with economics, has reached even Norway.

First, they gave the literature prize not to another darling of the William Ayers set, but to Mario Vargas Llosa, a Peruvian writer of anti-Marxist dictator tomes.

Now comes word that instead of giving another Peace Prize to a president in office for mere days who was in the middle of announcing the escalation of a war or some jerk that only Oliver Stone could love or a climate huckster, they decided to reach back in time to when the honor meant something and gave it to "imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo". Showing how far China still has to go, they immediately declared a news blackout and threw a hissy fit. Bravo to Oslo for making the hard, right choice, angering an oppressive regime instead of drawing derisive laughter from conservatives.

The Bad Old Days

A wave of government layoffs in September outpaced weak hiring in the private sector, pushing down the nation's payrolls by a net total of 95,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate held at 9.6 percent last month, the Labor Department said Friday. The jobless rate has now topped 9.5 percent for 14 straight months, the longest stretch since the 1930s.

The report is the final one before the November elections, which means members of Congress will face voters next month with an economy that is still struggling to create jobs.

The private sector added 64,000 positions, the weakest showing since June.

Can you believe those damned Republicans want to drag us back to the horrible Bush days of shrinking deficits, 4.5% unemployment, low inflation, and quarter after quarter after quarter of steady GDP growth? What the hell's wrong with you, America, for wanting to return to that, to put the nation in (R)everse instead of continuing to (D)rive progressively into the future?

Could NY GOPers Ride Paladino To Victory?

I don't think this idea is that crazy - not as crazy as Paladino's antics so far, certainly. Think about it...Paladino's base doesn't seem as nonexistent as many of us thought, as demonstrated in the primary. These people are weirdly fired up and will turn out again in November. While ticking their ballot they're going to be voting for conservative and republican candidates on other lines. Meanwhile, Democrats, soothed by polls showing Andrew "housing crash architect" Cuomo is ahead by a margin of roughly 147% and not particularly fired up about sending more Democrats to Congress, may just decide to stay home in November.

It goes a bit against the grain - normally backers of longshots don't bother voting while backers of cakewalkers (which are different than Cake Wreckers) like to show up and vote for a candidate they know will win (leading to the slim popular vote margin for Gore in 2000 when west coast liberals gleefully decided to go vote after the nets foolishly and dangerously 'called' Florida for Gore WAY too early and essentially declared Gore the winner while polls were still open in FL and in most of the nation, leading Bush supporters in states he was never going to win to stay home instead of bothering to go vote for a losing candidate). But with a dysfunctional legislature led by and overpopulated with Democrats that they may not care to vote for, a guv line that no one thinks is in doubt, and congressmen that are bankrupting their kids and keeping unemployment at 10%, they're probably not too thrilled to go vote for them...so they might just stay home. And, again, the right voters are going to turn out to 'throw out the bums' because they are motivated.

If you ask me, I don't think it's that crazy that there could be some upsets at the local, state, and even statewide level next month, upsets that wouldn't happen with a more 'standard' gubernatorial race. So, no, I don't think Carl has a chance, but he just might be the impetus that gets some republicans elected in a state that increasingly seems desperate to follow CA down the toilet rather than right their ship.

-

In the same vein, interesting analysis here from Dick Morris: A New York Earthquake?

They Said What Now?

Interesting two days of coverage of the 'report' that supposedly has already digested what everyone needs to know about a massive and tragic oil spill.

(I'm paraphrasing throughout here)

The first headline I saw about it was that the report had said the federal government had prevented the spill from being worse than it was.

Later in the day it was then trumpeting that the White House had kept the leak from being worse that it was. Odd that such a horrendous federal response was trying to be credited as positive to President 'don't bother me, I'm going on vacation again' Obama himself.

Then this morning the lead stories seem to be that the report wasn't praising the government, but criticizing it for downplaying the spill.

Online, the headlines were mimicking this.

Later in the day on Thursday the headlines had degenerated to say the report openly berated the federal government (no more talk about "the White House") for a "flawed" response.

Verrrry interesting.

Desperate? Who? Me?

Just saw a Susan Savage ad trying to tie Hugh Farley to Democrat Pedro Espada.

Not that she's desperate or anything given her deep poll deficit or anything. What's next, photoshopping Farley next to Obama?

Escape From ObamaCare For New York Teachers

So it's come to this. The monstrous government takeover of health care in America is already picking winners and losers. Not a schoolyard game of duck-duck-duck-goose! but the political hand out of waivers from ObamaCare for favored groups - including the massive NY teachers union.

U.S. Waives Health Insurance Minimums for 1 Million

Almost a million workers, a third of them members of New York’s teachers union, were left out of a consumer protection in U.S. health law meant to cap insurance costs after the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including Jack in the Box Inc. and the United Federation of Teachers, won’t be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low- cost health plans covering seasonal, part-time or low-wage employees. The Department of Health and Human Services said it granted waivers in late September so workers with minimum plans would keep coverage without major premium increases...

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, got to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box’s waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald’s Corp. asked to excuse 115,000...

What was that about the government picking winners & losers instead of allowing a free market to operate again?

Strike Two

Sweet...so the guy in charge of NASA first spills the bills that Obama told him his first priority, after scrapping our manned space program I guess, was making Muslims feel good about themselves. Now he's been "reprimanded" for ethics violations resulting from inappropriate mingling of work and personal finances.

What a joke this administration is making of our nation.

New York Still Has An Eminent Domain Problem

While many states, outraged over the redefinition of eminent domain by 5 liberal Supreme Court justices, passed laws to stop abuse of eminent domain...New York is not one of them...and problems remain:

The Singh/Kaur family came to America from India in hopes of a better life and increased opportunity.

The family settled in New York and has since run two gas stations in the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattanville. For 25 years the family worked around the clock to maintain its stations and even installed a car wash on one of them.

The business is all the family has.

“This is their official business,” says David L. Smith, attorney for the Singh/Kaur family. “It’s what they do, it’s what they own — this is their livelihood.”

If you go to the family’s gas station now, you will notice that the car wash is no longer working. Why? The Singh/Kaur family can’t take out a loan to have it fixed.

It’s not because they have bad credit or wouldn’t be able to pay the loan off, it’s because they are being threatened with eminent domain. No bank will finance property that might be taken away.

In the same neighborhood, Nick Sprayregen owns his storage facility, Tuck-It-Away Associates, LP. He houses items for about 2,000 local families and small businesses within his four-building operation.

Sprayregen’s business has taken a hit. Possibly due to the economy, but mostly because of the same threat of eminent domain that is trying to take the land of the Singh/Kaur family.

Neither property owner is giving up their land without a fight.

The entity attempting to seize the land from these property owners is Columbia University, a private school. The university wants to build a new 17-acre campus in the neighborhood of Manhattanville...

Columbia University partnered with Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a quasi-government authority, to take over the land.

As previously reported by Americans for Limited Government (ALG), Manhattanville business owners’ attorney Smith and former New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Norman Siegel were able to prove that Columbia and ESDC conspired together to produce the conditions of “blight” that would then allow the ESDC to seize the property wanted by the university. They also found that many of the “blighted” buildings were already owned by Columbia and it was the university’s responsibility to clean them up. Because the university was not keeping the buildings and spaces up to code, many of the businesses in the area were forced to move out. Constant threats of eminent domain also caused them to leave.

In December 2009, a state appellate court struck down the ESDC’s actions as illegal. The case was then heard by the Court of Appeals on June 1st, 2010.

The decision from the Court of Appeals, as reported by The New York Times, overturned the appellate court’s ruling that barred the state from using its power of eminent domain to take private property...

The only option left for the property owners is the United States Supreme Court. Papers have already been filed. Now they must wait with their fingers crossed in hopes that the Supreme Court will hear the case.

Smith believes they have a chance.

About five years ago the Supreme Court made a questionable ruling in another eminent domain case, Kelo vs. City of New London. Susette Kelo was a property owner in New London, Connecticut, when pharmaceutical company Pfizer decided it wanted a new corporate facility in her neighborhood. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the pharmaceutical giant and an entire neighborhood was stripped down for its new facility, shops, restaurants and hotels.

The rest of the story is even more devastating. Four years after the Supreme Court ruling, Pfizer moved out. Land that once provided families with a home was now empty and barren.

The case received national attention and since then, many states have reformed their eminent domain laws to protect the rights of property owners.

New York has not...

“This would be the perfect case for the Supreme Court to do some tweaking,” Smith says, in regards to the outrage over the Kelo case ruling. “We are keeping our fingers and toes crossed.”

Racist Tea Partier Angry At Black President Sentenced

Well, the angry, racist tea partier mad at Obama for giving poor people free healthcare has been given life for setting of a (dud) bomb in Times Square this past May.

Still-defiant Times Sq. bomber gets life sentence

A Pakistani immigrant who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison...

A defiant Faisal Shahzad smirked as he was given a mandatory life term that, under federal sentencing rules, will keep him behind bars until he dies...

Calling himself a Muslim solider, a defiant Shahzad pleaded guilty in June to 10 terrorism and weapons counts.

He admitted that the Pakistan Taliban provided him with more than $15,000 and five days of explosives training late last year and early this year, months after he became a U.S. citizen.

Oh, right...he was a Muslim terrorist.

“A home-grown?” she asked, to which Bloomberg responded, “Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”

Anything except a muslim, right Bloomy?

News You Need That You Won't See

The filthy aftermath of the liberal rally in DC - you know, the one that left behind piles of trash vs. none after the recent conservative rally even though that one dwarfed this one:

15 Photos From the #OneNation Rally You'll Never See In Legacy Media

Video: How One Nation Rally Respects Our WWII Vets (Updated)

A Tale of Two Rallies on the Mall: Clean Conservatives vs. Filthy Libs (Video)

Figures. CSPAN Uses Tea Party Rally Crowd Shot for Leftist “One Nation” Rally Article

Your Random Saturday

Ross Mackenzie:

Princeton prof, Nobelist, and New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman: "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice. These stories are false." London's Sunday Times: "More than 3,000 staff, including doctors and nurses, have gone private at the taxpayers' expense in the past three years because the queues at the clinics and hospitals where they work are too long."

Jonah Goldberg on a bit of a roll:

You've got to wonder when White House political guru David Axelrod will look at the churning pools of poll data and, like Chief Brody in "Jaws," say: "We're gonna need a bigger boat."

The analogy isn't quite right, because in the movie, the shark ultimately loses. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Barack Obama and Axelrod victoriously paddle away on the flotsam of their own political wreckage...

Convinced that his popularity was eternal, Obama responded by saying, yes, but there's a "big difference" between 1994 and 2010, and that big difference is "you've got me."

The funny thing is, Obama might have been right. Because things might be much worse for Democrats in 2010 than they were in 1994 -- and the big difference might well be Barack Obama.

In fairness, the biggest difference is probably the economy, which in political terms should be fitted for a pine box. Of course, Mr. Credibility, Joe Biden, says it's doing great, sounding a bit like the shopkeeper in the Monty Python "Dead Parrot sketch" who insists the bird's "just resting."...

Moreover, Obama has lost his connection with the American people. He's aloof without inspiring confidence. On issue after issue -- terrorism, immigration, the oil spill, the environment and the ground zero mosque -- he seems determined to craft his responses in a way that will annoy the most people possible.

If You Do Good At Marrying Money, You Get Stuck In The Senate

The backstabber, John Kerry, that famously told our comparatively-highly educated military that they didn't pay attention in school and were stupid is at again, saying:

"We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening."

Ahem.Hopenchange, baybee.