Cuomo's HUD Covered Up In Lib 'Documentary'

10 Reasons You Should Not Waste Your Money On Film 'Inside Job'

'Inside Job" bills itself as "the first film to expose the shocking truth behind the economic crisis." It exposes whoremongering Wall Street traders, economic consultants who lie on their resumes and Hank Paulson's conflicts.

But it doesn't answer what caused the crisis...

• No. 1: Ferguson, a 55-year-old millionaire who also created the anti-Iraq war documentary, "No End In Sight," has a political agenda. FEC campaign records show he gives exclusively to Democrats — and gives a lot.

Ferguson, who advised the Clinton White House, has personally donated more than $200,000 to Democrats, including Barack Obama. He's a major Democrat activist, bordering on party functionary, which explains all the "gotcha" interviews with Bush officials, whose words are edited to bumbling and otherwise unflattering sound bites.

You won't find his political bias mentioned in any of the rave reviews for his film. The New York Times, Time magazine and even the Wall Street Journal portray him as an earnest documentarian. In fact, Ferguson is just a slicker (and skinnier) version of filmmaker Michael Moore...

• No. 3: "Inside Job" is completely silent about the affordable-housing mandates HUD foisted on Fannie and Freddie. As the accompanying chart shows, the goals forced the government-sponsored mortgage giants to devote fully half their business to risky loans for poor and minority borrowers.

By 2008, Fannie and Freddie had underwritten 12 million in subprime and other risky mortgages — roughly half the toxic debt outstanding and much more than the combined holdings of the Wall Street banks "Inside Job" demonizes.

HUD's draconian social goals are the most elemental cause of the subprime crisis. Yet Ferguson, who boasts of conducting "extensive research," somehow couldn't find any room for them in his two-hour movie.

• No. 4: "Inside Job" also ignores the role played by the Community Reinvestment Act, an anti-redlining regulation that requires banks to make mortgages to borrowers in predominantly poor and minority Census tracts.

In 1995, President Clinton revised the regulation to pressure banks to bend lending standards. The changes contributed to the large number of subprime and other risky loans that failed in the banking crisis. Bankers didn't make dodgy loans to poor and uncreditworthy people out of the goodness of their hearts. Politicians pushed them to make them.

Clinton also for the first time authorized Fannie and Freddie to earn HUD credits by purchasing securities backed by subprime mortgages, which HUD promoted as "goals-rich loans." When Fannie and Freddie securitized subprime loans, they suddenly became safe, since the ratings agencies viewed their securitizations as guaranteed by Treasury.

When Wall Street jumped into that market, it simply responded to the distorted incentives Washington had created — a side of the equation conspicuously absent from "Inside Job."

• No. 5: The film claims minority borrowers were "put into" subprime loans by "predatory lenders" such as Countrywide Financial. Yet it was HUD that put Countrywide into the subprime business.

After the Clinton HUD threatened to investigate Countrywide for lending discrimination, the mortgage lender signed a government contract agreeing to relax its lending standards and increase the number of minority loans. Countrywide soon became the biggest subprime lender. If Ferguson had done his research, he would have found that HUD was the biggest predatory lender of all...

• No. 8: A mysterious source used throughout the movie is one Andrew Sheng, described simply as "chief adviser to the China Banking Regulatory Commission." He happens to be a communist party functionary based in Beijing. The banking commission he serves is a department of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, which maintains an interlocking membership with the top levels of the communist party of China.

This explains why Ferguson took his crew to China and gained access to sweat shops, where workers conveniently blamed the global economic crisis on American capitalism. Sheng, for his part, lectures Americans about "private gains at public loss." Xinhua News Agency, the official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, couldn't have written a better script.

• No. 9: But the main source threaded throughout this so-called documentary is a radical anti-redlining community organizing group out of Berkeley, Calif., where Ferguson also happens to be based. The co-founder of the Greenlining Institute, described only as an "advocacy group," returns at the close of each of the film's multiple parts and provides the exclamation point.

If you didn't know better, you'd think Greenlining wrote the outline for the film. Greenlining's Bob Gnaizda is portrayed as an early whistle-blower on the crisis, when in fact his group was pushing banks to ease lending requirements for minorities with shaky credit in the run-up to it.

Gnaizda started Greenlining to open up lending in urban areas it accused banks of redlining — thus the name "Greenlining." When a documentary filmmaker hides the true agenda of its main source, alarm bells should go off all over the media...

Hippo Flashback

Blast from da past: link

Further Narrowing Of Scope

Current plans are for me to continue to walk back AMB, back to local news. I might still occasionally post something else when the mood strikes me, but, to be blunt, I can't be bothered to continue with a lot of what I've been doing.

I've said often that the primary purpose of this blog was self-education. In doing my own research into things, I would post the results here - sharing that knowledge. Oh well. Let's just say that my journey of self-enlightenment has reached a point where simply linking to others' work is no longer worth my time and effort given the ROI. I recommend, if you haven't already done so:

-subscribing to the daily newsletters at Townhall, particularly the daily opinion columns to get the works of the likes of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ann Coulter, Larry Elder, Dennis Prager, and others

-subscribing to the daily editorial email from Investors Business Daily

-subscribing to Newt Gingrich's weekly column at Human Events

-subscribing to updates from The Fire

-subscribing to weekly computer tips from Leo Notenboom :)

Hope you get as much out of those as I do. Anyway, continuing coverage of local items will continue, most other things will not, because hey, if no one else cares, neither do I :)

Welcome To Israel

Hello, my Israeli friends, welcome to Israel! Where muslim terrorists plot to blow us up then complain when someone retaliates against their terrorism as if they are the aggrieved party as opposed to the terrorist aggressor. Yessiree bob...

I Consume Mainstream Media

I am infuriated that the GOP will return us to "90's style gridlock"!

I worship Bill Clinton because of the 90's "surpluses" that occurred with a Democrat president and GOP-controlled House with accompanying "gridlock".

I blame Reagan for the fact that there were deficits in the 80's. The Democrats controlling the purse strings in Congress should not be mentioned.

I credit Clinton for the surpluses in the 90's. The Republicans controlling the purse strings in Congress should not be mentioned.


I see nothing wrong with believing all of these things at the same time.

Real History

Thanksgiving time is a good time for some real history...don't worry, it's not about 'the real first Thanksgiving'...it's about why socialists and leftists are wrong...you know, low-hanging fruit. (Remember, this is a column, not a 'news item', but if you want to get all snippy about some of the numbers or details he rattles off, recall that this is Thomas Sowell and this is his wheelhouse):

One of these brass oldies is the idea that the government can and must reduce unemployment by "creating jobs." Some people point to the history of the Great Depression of the 1930s, when unemployment peaked at 25 percent, as proof that the government cannot simply stand by and do nothing when so many millions of people are out of work.

If we are going to look back at history, we need to make sure the history we look at is accurate. First of all, unemployment never hit 25 percent until after-- repeat, AFTER-- the federal government intervened in the economy.

What was unemployment like when the federal government first intervened in the economy after the stock market crash of 1929? It was 6.3 percent when that first intervention took place in June 1930-- down from a peak of 9 percent in December 1929, two months after the stock market crash.

Unemployment never hit double digits in any of the 12 months following the stock market crash of 1929. But it hit double digits within 6 months after government intervention-- and unemployment stayed in double digits for the entire remainder of the decade, as the government went in for one intervention after another...

The idea behind these higher tariffs was that reducing our imports of foreign goods would create more jobs for American workers. It sounds plausible, but more than a thousand economists took out newspaper ads, warning that these tariffs would be counterproductive.

That was because other countries would retaliate with their own import restrictions, reducing American exports, thereby destroying American jobs. That is exactly what happened...

You can save jobs in the American sugar industry by restricting imports of foreign sugar. But that results in higher sugar prices within the United States, leading to higher costs for American candy producers, as well as American producers of other products containing sugar. That leads to higher prices for those products, which in turn means lower sales at home and abroad-- and therefore fewer jobs in those industries.

A study concluded that there were three times as many jobs lost in the confection industry as were saved in the sugar industry. Restrictions on steel imports likewise led to an estimated 5,000 jobs being saved in the steel industry-- and 26,000 jobs being lost in industries producing products made of steel.

Similarly, the whole idea of the government itself "creating jobs" is based on regarding the particular jobs created by government as being a net increase in the total number of jobs in the economy. But, since the government does not create wealth to pay for these jobs, but only transfers wealth from the private sector, that leaves less wealth for private employers to create jobs.

Paterson Bows Out Just A Typical Leftist

I had some hopes for David Paterson here and there over the past couple of years. But his moments of 'getting in' are simply overshadowed by his inability to grasp the big picture.

As the culmination I would point to his interview with Don Weeks this morning. Even as he was talking about fiscal security, deficit reduction, and such, he made the "can't see the forest for the trees" comment along the lines of, 'Our problem is a problem of revenue'.

No, David. NY's problem is NOT a problem of revenue. Like that of the federal government, our problem is a problem of spending. Look here: link.

For fiscal year 2010 the state took in $55,106,374,217 in taxes. That's $55.1 billion. Yet the budget, spending, was on the order of $130 billion. See, the reason why they spend twice as much as they take in (more!) is because they also count on money from Washington and such. Look at how tax receipts have grown:

2010: $55.1 billion
2005: $47.5 billion
2000: $40.0 billion
1995: $31.8 billion
1990: $27.0 billion

That looks like growth of almost 38% in the past 10 years and 104% in 20 years. Inflation over those same periods? 27% and 67%. So while tax receipts have grown much fast than inflation, spending has clearly not kept pace, it has instead roared ahead much faster than inflation.

The problem is not one of revenue, Governor, it is one of spending. It is increasing spending at breakneck pace during 'good times' instead of putting it aside for 'rainy days' when receipts are lower. 25 years of Reaganism is guilty of one thing - producing so much prosperity that budgets from DC to dogcatcher were allowed to bloat uncontrollably as governments at every level became flush with tax receipts and, instead of wisely investing it or socking it away in a 'lockbox', they instead ratcheted up their spending accordingly, never dreaming that one day times might get tough.

In sports there are always a few teams that you can't quite figure out - they knock off the defending champ and then get rolled by a chump. They call that 'playing up or down to your competition' - if the competition is great, you play your best, if you're playing someone waiting to make their tee times after the season, you play like losers. Liberal/socialist big government has not learned to do that - when times are good they spend a ton. When they're bad...they spend a ton. Then they gripe not about having to cut spending, but about how to get 'more' to spend.

Hippo Sighting

President Barack Obama on Tuesday pledged the United States would defend South Korea after what the White House branded a provocative, outrageous attack by North Korea on its neighbor. Its options limited, the U.S. sought a diplomatic rather a military response to one of those most ominous clashes between the Koreas in decades.

"South Korea is our ally. It has been since the Korean war," Obama said in his first comments about the North Korean shelling of a South Korean island. "And we strongly affirm our commitment to defend South Korea as part of that alliance."

Funny, when Russia invaded our ally, Georgia, when he was campaigning, Obey-Won said both sides needed to take a chill pill and put as much blame on invaded Georgia as invader Russia.

Hypocrisy - it's what's for diplomacy.

Time Travelling!!

What is this, the year 1400 and they have to clarify, like 'oh, you're talking about the Vatican Pope!'

Conservative Resurgence X

Via Newt:

On November 2nd, the Left was dealt a crushing rejection, just as it had suffered in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1994. But this election rejection won’t reform the Left, just as it did not in these prior electoral rejections. The Left simply doesn’t notice these rejections, as Nancy Pelosi’s likely successful effort to remain her party’s minority leader in the House attests.

The Left doesn’t notice electoral rejections because the power of the Left doesn’t reside in popular elections. The power of the Left is in tenured academics. The power of the Left is in the news media. The power of the Left is in the bureaucracy. The power of the Left is in union leadership. The power of the Left is inside the judgeships. The power of the Left is in fact in the Hollywood literati. And so the Left just keeps going further to the Left.

Rejection of the Left is simply not an adequate, long-term strategy if you are serious about saving America because rejection doesn’t fix a center-Left coalition, which has been in power since 1932. And this reality requires conservatives to adopt a fundamentally new strategy of replacement. We have to look at every level of American society and every level of American government, and we have to decide that we are going to replace the Left, with policies, systems, and institutions that reflect the heart of the American tradition.

In this spirit, conservatives cannot just plan for the next two years. Today, our goal in replacing the Left is to create a majority that governs so decisively, with such positive results, that after ten years, in January 2021, we are swearing in the newest members of a majority team who understand why they are continuing a center-right majority; understand how to build a prosperous America; understand how to keep America safe; and understand why they are continuing the freest society in history...

There are more than 513,000 elected officials in the United States – school boards, city council, county commission, state legislatures, governors, judges and the like. This scale of self-government means that if we truly want a wave of change that ends the majority system of the Left, which has been around since 1932, then the wave can’t just be about winning the Oval Office. If we are to devolve power out of Washington and return the power back home, it means citizens have to be engaged. So if conservatives are to undertake successfully a replacement of the Left, it will require a citizen movement that will have local government, state government, and federal government implications...

A key organizing principle of the next ten years for replacing the Left consists of five words: job killing policies kill jobs.

The first step in replacing the Left is putting Americans back to work, and this can only be done by consistently identifying for the country job killing policies and ending or replacing them. If you go from 9.6% unemployment to 4% unemployment, you take 5.6% of the country off food stamps, off unemployment, off Medicaid, and you get them back to paying taxes.

There is no single step toward balancing the budget bigger than full employment. And that should be the number one Republican goal. Republicans should fight to eliminate job killing policies every single day so that more jobs can be created by the private sector. They should fight it out over litigation, regulation, education, energy, taxes, and healthcare.

If we take the model seriously of replacing job killing policies, then it is fair to say that the choice that we want to offer in 2012 is very clear. If you think your children ought to have food stamps, you have a party you should vote for. If you think your children ought to have a paycheck or own their own business, you have a party you ought to vote for.

This is a message that can be taken into every neighborhood of every ethnic background. We can ask “would you rather your children have food stamps or paychecks?” and by 80% or better in every neighborhood, they’re going to say, “You know, I really like that paycheck idea.” Now that’s the courage we have to have. We have to be clear about it, to be disciplined about it, to mean it, and then to go out and tell everybody we want them to have that kind of a future...

Empowering Every American to Pursue Happiness. Since we truly believe that every American is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights – among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – then we must be determined to go into our country’s poorest communities, whether it is in the valley, the inner city, or poor, rural areas. We must change the culture; we must change the bureaucracy; we must change the tax code; we must do whatever it takes to ensure that every American is truly capable of pursuing happiness, as they have been endowed by their Creator with that right. When conservatives are truly serious about all American citizens having the right to pursue happiness, we will create a 75% majority, and we will be able to offer our children and grandchildren a vastly better future than the bureaucratic welfare state of dependency, coercion, and ineffectiveness we face today.

Here We Go Again

Yahoo front page headline of AP story: "Jury convicts Salvadoran immigrant of killing Chandra Levy"

Story headline: "Man in past jogger attacks guilty of Levy slaying"

5th paragraph: "Investigators eventually focused on Guandique, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, and brought formal charges last year."

---

FoxNews front page headline: "Illegal Immigrant Found Guilty in Levy Case"

Story headline: "Jury Convicts Salvadoran Immigrant of Murdering Chandra Levy"

"Illegal" is never used in the text.

---

CNN front page headline: "Guilty verdict in Chandra Levy murder"

Story headline: "Jury convicts man in killing of Chandra Levy in 2001"

You won't find the word "Illegal" anywhere.

---

MSNBC front page headline (dwarfed by a story about whether the supposed "credibility" of a celebrity dancing show has been ruined by Bristol Palin for, you know, attracting viewers and voters): "Guilty verdict in Chandra Levy murder case"

Story headline: "Guilty verdict in Chandra Levy murder case"

This is also an AP story...except it fails to mention "illegal immigrant".

---

flashback

More here: link

==
wow, both papers used the "illegal immigrant" version. Bravo. Let's tack on a 'praise' to this post.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ching!

There's a (very lame) Obama Chia Pet being advertised in one of the flyers today. All I could think was: 'What does it grow, deficits?'

Hippo Krugman Promotes Death Panels He Claims Don't Exist

Busted:

In the years ahead, Krugman said, "we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT (value-added tax). But it's not going to happen now."

Last year, in an Aug. 13, 2009 column, Krugman blasted Sarah Palin for claiming that health care reform would create "death panels" that would "shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course," Krugman wrote at the time.

A week later, Krugman accused Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) of feeding “the death panel smear,” by warning that health care reform would “pull the plug on grandma.”

And in yet another column on Aug. 30, 2009, Krugman again criticized Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa who "helped feed the 'death panel' lies."...

But as Krugman said on Sunday, “Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all.”

Local Rags' BS

If income tax rate are, for example, 10% and you want them to stay at 10% - are you calling for "tax cuts"? If the rate does not change, is that a "cut"?

The Daily Gazette has an utterly BS headline on the front page today screaming about how people that have been on unemployment for more than 2 years won't keep getting more unemployment if Congress can't extend the benefits. The headline screeches "GOP stalls extender, wants big tax cuts".

Are you kidding me? What an utter load of carp.

For starters, as usual the GOP is in favor of extending unemployment benefits, they just want to actually PAY FOR THEM instead of borrowing more money from China for them. The Democrats, in a fit of idiocy since the elections are already over, tried to smash through the bill in a way such that they needed 2/3rd to agree with a bill that is pure deficit spending. By doing it that way they wouldn't have to let the GOP propose alternatives like PAYING FOR THEM. Typical liberal media trash.

The second part is even worse because it deliberately conflates the two issues and makes it seem that the GOP would go along with extending the benefits only if there are "big tax cuts" attached, which is a complete fabrication.

As for the Times Union, their bleating headline is "GOP stalls jobless aid act" and "tax cut fight for the rich".

They don't get the message that America sent at the beginning of the month any more than Obama does.

TU Admits Conservatives Were Right About Stimulus

Rick Karlin gets the unhappy task in Tuesday's paper to admit that conservatives were right all along about the "stimulus":

For the past two years, finance experts as well as some politicians have warned that once the generosity of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act winds down, New York would face even worse budget problems.

That's because the stimulus money acted as a crutch that allowed the state's two major expenses, education and Medicaid, to grow despite the recession.

With the stimulus ending next summer, those rising costs will have to come from state taxpayers -- unless cuts are made.

Of course they were ignored and ridiculed by people like the Democrats, Obama, the Times Union (which is still crowing about how successful the spending was).

"We're losing federal spending, which supports state spending," warned Budget Director Robert Megna, who gathered with other officials on Monday for their annual Quick Start meeting, which provides one of the first formal looks at the coming budget year.

I thought it was supposed to be spurring job growth, you mean it was just being used by governments to continue their unsustainable spending for a few more years like conservatives were saying all along? *gasp* I am shocked, I tell you, shocked!

We'll take that apology any time now, Rex and friends.

Your Random Saturday

Reality check from Ed Feulner:

Consider health care. Before the 1960s, Americans who didn’t get their insurance through work typically got it through civic organizations such as churches and social clubs. Now they’re more likely to get it through government public programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The result? Greater dependence on government...

Another example is lower-cost housing. Up until World War II, it was mutual-aid, religious and educational organizations that provided housing assistance to low-income Americans. As with health care, it was a neighbor-helping-neighbor approach. But then the federal and state governments got into the act, offering more generous assistance. Today, government provides nearly all housing assistance on offer...

Worse, the number of people paying for this largesse is dwindling.

In 1962, the first year measured in the Index, the percentage of people who didn’t pay federal income taxes themselves, and who were not claimed as dependents by someone who paid federal income taxes, stood at 23.7 percent. By 2000, the percentage was 34.1 percent. By 2008, 43.6 percent.

“In short,” the Index notes, “the country may be rapidly approaching a point where one-half of ‘taxpayers’ do not pay taxes, while receiving generous federal benefits.”...

It’s worth recalling what Thomas Jefferson called “the sum of good government” in his first Inaugural Address: “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

And a second one from Michael Medved:

Quite naturally, the people who look favorably on Islam feel unconcerned over its ancient teachings or loathsome perversions in benighted corners of the globe, and focus instead on the law-abiding, patriotic, family-loving Muslims who have established benign communities throughout the United States. But even the decent people who reside in those communities rightly worry that their impressionable off-spring may become too religious, too zealous in their fervent commitment to The Prophet and his teachings.

There is no real parallel to this fear in Christian or Jewish homes. Christian parents may feel embarrassed by their religiously reborn children suddenly studying the Gospels obsessively, or witnessing obnoxiously to family or friends, but they needn’t worry about wayward kids blowing up themselves or others in the name of Jesus. Jewish mothers and fathers may hate the scraggly beards and black hats adopted by a suddenly Orthodox generation, or resent the refusal to eat non-kosher food at home, but even the most fanatical of their kids feel scant temptation to travel to remote mountain hideouts as part of an international terror conspiracy...

A Christian fundamentalist may talk about burning Korans; Muslim crazies regularly burn buildings- and people. Even after Pastor Terry Jones called off his idiotic barbeque of the Islamic holy book, Muslims reacted with deadly riots in Kashmir that killed 16 and wounded sixty, while burning several schools and other government buildings.

Some Americans may dislike the style of worship in Pentecostal or Catholic churches, but the faithful (no matter how tackily dressed) never surge out of their sanctuaries on Sundays with fury and blood-lust, looking for non-believers to stone and property to destroy. Every Friday, however, somewhere in the vast Muslim world, some congregations of the devout react to their uplifting prayer services by going directly from their mosques to rousing orgies of rage and violence.

This observation isn’t an expression of bigotry; it’s a factual product of reading the newspaper, and regularly monitoring international news.

And yet another from Thomas Sowell:

No one contributed more to the policies behind the housing boom and bust, which led to the economic disaster we are now in, than Congressman Barney Frank.

His powerful position on the House of Representatives' Committee on Financial Services gave him leverage to force through legislation and policies which pressured banks and other lenders to grant mortgage loans to people who would not qualify under the standards which had long prevailed, and had long made mortgage loans among the safest investments around...

To those who warned of the risks in the new policies, Congressman Frank replied in 2003 that critics "exaggerate a threat of safety" and "conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see." Far from being reluctant to promote risky practices, Barney Frank said, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation."...

In 2004 he said: "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing." He went further: "I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing."...

Fast forward now to 2008, after the risky mortgages had led to huge numbers of defaults, dragging down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the financial markets in general -- and with them the whole economy.

Barney Frank was all over the media, pointing the finger of blame at everybody else. When financial analyst Maria Bartiromo asked Congressman Frank who was responsible for the financial crisis, he said, "right-wing Republicans."...

Ms. Bartiromo did not just accept whatever Barney Frank said. She said: "With all due respect, congressman, I saw videotapes of you saying in the past: 'Oh, let's open up the lending. The housing market is fine.'" His reply? "No, you didn't see any such tapes."

"I did. I saw them on TV," she said. But Barney Frank did not budge...

Ann Coulter explains how Delaware elected a lying misogynistic weasel over a conservative woman thanks to the press and, I guess, their desire to be like California or something:

O'Donnell's responses couldn't have been better if Thomas Sowell were whispering them in her ear. But after every well-thought-out answer she gave, Coons would act as if O'Donnell were speaking in tongues and make a dismissive remark to the moderators: "If you can reconcile all those comments, you're an even more talented reporter than I think you are, Nancy."...

Then Coons would say something incomprehensible, false or insane -- such as his conspiracy theory about the Australians uniting with the Chinese against America.

Yes, Australia, America's most loyal ally.

After O'Donnell described the China problem with absolute precision -- the Chinese hold so much of our debt, we can't hold them accountable in their dealings with Iran or North Korea -- Coons smirkingly replied: "It's hard for me to respond effectively, Wolf, to all the different issues that my opponent has raised in previous statements, and I'll just let that stand."

Then he launched his Chinese-Australian conspiracy theory!...

What should worry Delaware voters even more than Coons' demanding a first strike against China was the elaborate lying he did -- on stage, in front of everyone -- about his family's financial interest in cap and trade.

Responding to the question about "our carbon footprint" from a student who will be living with his parents soon, O'Donnell gave a tour-de-force attack on the cap-and-trade bill, mentioning the massive electricity bills that will devastate Delaware's farmers and elderly citizens.

She concluded by asking Coons: "Speaking of cap and trade, your family business stands to financially benefit from some environmental legislation under Bush -- "

Then she was cut off by the moderator.

Coons sneered: "A fascinating question that really makes no sense, yet, so if you'd like to -- better ask the whole question, I'd be -- what's she talking about?"

O'Donnell said sweetly, "I'd like to know if your family business stands to have a financial gain if cap and trade is passed and, if so, would you recuse yourself in the lame duck sessions from voting with Harry Reid?"

Coons again scoffed at O'Donnell: "Fascinating question. No."

Thinking he had caught O'Donnell in a gaffe, Blitzer asked for her evidence. Oops!

O'Donnell cited W.L. Gore -- the company owned by Coon's stepfather, which also provided Coons with the only for-profit job he ever held -- and said that the company makes fuel cells and other things that companies will be forced to buy under cap and trade...

Blitzer asked Coons, "Is that true?" Oops, again!

Amid a litany of irrelevancies and insults -- That's quite a stretch, Gore makes a lot of products, we also sell dental floss! -- Coons finally coughed up the truth: Yes, Gore will benefit if cap and trade becomes law.

He explained his earlier, by-now-obvious lie by saying that "it took a couple of minutes to even understand what she was talking about."

Really? That's strange, because according to Delaware newspaper articles not seven years ago, Coons himself -- as the lawyer for Daddy's company –- deployed Gore scientists to testify before Congress in favor of environmental mandates because, as Coons said, it was good for business.

On Nov. 16, 2003, "company lawyer Christopher Coons" told Wilmington's News Journal: "This is one of those very rare moments where the legislative outcome matters to Gore."

I guess now we know why Coons kept pretending he couldn't understand the batty dame.

Not Bad, But Not Enough

Palin e-mail hacker sentenced to year in custody

A former University of Tennessee student who hacked into Sarah Palin's e-mail during the 2008 presidential campaign was sentenced Friday to a year and a day, with the judge recommending a halfway house instead of prison.

Not a terrible sentence for publicly hacking someone's private email.

However, I think there have to be more severe penalties than a year in a halfway house for a blatant attempt to sabotage a presidential election via an illegal route.

And Dan Rather and everyone involved with his attempted hit on Bush should have gotten that sentence, also. It was a blatant attempt to sabotage a presidential election and we cannot tolerate that if we are to continue to fair and free elections.

Informative Roundup

Just a random pile of stuff I find extremely interesting and I didn't want to spam out a pile of posts. Enjoy!

__________

Who really benefited from big businesses "dumping loads of cash" into this election?

Now that election 2010 is over, let’s go back over to OpenSecrets and look at which evil corporations stole our democracy and bought Congress for the Republicans — the RepubliCorp!...

* Defense Contractors: 55% Democrat, 44% Republican ($18 million)...
* Securities & Investment: 53% Democrat, 46% Republican ($8.2 million)...
* Hedge Funds: 53% Democrat, 46% Republican ($6.8 million total)
* Venture Capital: 64% Democrat, 36% Republican ($6.4 million)
* Private Equity: 56% Democrat, 43% Republican ($4.6 million)...
* HMO/Health services: 58% Democrats, 40% Republicans ($9.4 million)
* Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: 51% Democrats, 48% Republicans ($10.4 million)
* Medical Supply: 57% Democrats, 42% Republicans ($4.4 million)
* Hospitals/Nursing Homes: 63% Democrat, 36% Republican ($14.9 million)...
* Lobbyists: 65% Democrat, 34% Republican ($23.5 million)

The original is all linky. A few areas where Republicans did pull in more donations are listed as well.

__________

ACORN never really did anything wrong as the left will tell you. Right?

Former ACORN supervisor Amy Busefink has opted to plead guilty to a pair of gross misdemeanors rather than face 13 felony counts for her role in paying people to register voters...

Busefink, a Las Vegas field operative who ran an illegal voter registration program in 2008, paid a $5 bonus to canvassers who registered 21 or more voters in a day...

ACORN still faces a November 29 trial on 13 counts of compensation for registration of voters, the same charges Busefink and another employee faced. While ACORN no longer exists and is in bankruptcy, the organization faces fines up to $65,000.

__________

Anybody still think the mainstream media is living in the real world?

According to Good Morning America, Michelle Obama is the second coming of Jackie Kennedy. Co-host Robin Roberts enthused on Wednesday, "...First Lady Michelle Obama is drawing comparisons to the first first lady of fashion diplomacy. That, of course, being Jackie Kennedy." An ABC graphic lauded the "American icon."

Uhh....yeah...just like Jackie O!

__________

Love this Bush slapdown of Baldy Lauer, plus watch for the body blows to Carter and Clinton at the end:

LAUER: You spent a year and a half writing this book and I'm sure during the process you stopped and thought about what you were putting in there and what would the media react to? What would people really find that resonates with them? So now you've had a chance to hear a little bit of the reaction, over the last couple of days, any surprises to you?

BUSH: Well first let me debunk your premise. I really didn't spend time thinking about what the media would say about my book. I took the key issues, the key decisions I made and tried to explain to the reader why I made them. And, look, I was aware that some of the decisions I made were very controversial, and, and I knew that putting them in the book would create controversy, but I really wasn't concerned about what the media would think. What I'm more concerned about is how history will judge the decisions I made...

LAUER: -in the last year of your presidency. In that year, the country lost about 2.6 million jobs. The banking system nearly collapsed. The housing market did collapse and we fell into the deepest recession since the Great Depression. How much of the blame for that, should be laid at your feet and on your policies?

BUSH: Well I think a lot of the blame should be laid on, on a lot of people including my administration. Now in the book, I make it clear that we did recognize a looming problem and that is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with their implicit government guarantees were making risky investments. And therefore I called for the regulation of those two entities and was thwarted at every turn by powerful forces on Capitol Hill.

LAUER: And yet some would say you didn't call for enough regulation in other areas that doomed the economy.

BUSH: Well I don't think this was a matter of lack of over-regulation or lack of regulation. It was a matter of poor judgment by, by Wall Street and others. And, but no question, the housing bubble was fueled by government policy and that is a result of people in Congress refusing to regulate Fannie and Freddie. So my conscience is clear when it came time to recognize an impending problem...

BUSH: Here's, here's the deal. Most new jobs are created by small businesses. Many small businesses pay tax at the individual income tax level because of how the are organized. For example, sub chapter S corporations or limited partnerships. Therefore, if you raise the top rate you're taxing job creators.

LAUER: But we've been living under that system for seven years now and we've seen incredibly slow growth in jobs. So why should we continue down that path?

BUSH: I don't accept that premise. For 53 or nearly 53 weeks [should be "months" -falze] we had consecutive job growth. The longest period in, one of the longest periods in economic history. You gotta remember, let me put this, put this in perspective. I come to office, there is a dotcom bubble burst. Then 9/11 comes and the country is in severe economic hardship. The tax cuts, in my judgment, stimulated an economic vitality and a lot of jobs were created. Now the question is, how do we create them? And part of the debate is should government try to create the jobs or should the private sector try to create the jobs. My argument is keeping taxes low will encourage the private sector to create jobs...

LAUER: In the case of deficit, didn't you do the opposite, didn't you pass it along to a future generation?

BUSH: Actually if you look at the statistics, my deficit to GDP during my presidency was lower than Ronald Reagan's by half. Lower than my dad's. And only Bill Clinton among modern presidents, let me finish-

LAUER: Go ahead.

BUSH: My debt to GDP was the lowest or one of the lowest of modern presidents. My taxes to GDP was the lowest and my spending to GDP. Now I argued my fiscal record was strong, especially given the fact that we had to deal with recession and funding two wars necessary to protect the American people.

LAUER: But you were the only president since the Civil War who didn't raise taxes to pay for those wars. And you left office with a $10.7 trillion deficit, debt.

BUSH: No I think the way to look at it is the debt relative to the size of the economy. It's the only fair way to judge previous administrations to this, to my administration. And our debt to GDP was one of the lowest in modern history...

LAUER: Alan Greenspan, your Fed chairman, wrote a book and came out in 2007. In it he said, quote, "My biggest frustration remained the President's unwillingness to wield his veto against out of control spending."

BUSH: Well actually it's interesting you said that, because in 2007, I did veto bills and they were overridden quickly [Guess which party controlled Congress in 2007 -falze]. I vetoed the farm bill which was overridden, I vetoed a public works bill which was overridden. Prior to that we were able to negotiate budget deals with Republican controlled Congress that actually, other than defense spending, was able to ratchet down spending and at the end, less than, than the rate of inflation...

LAUER: Why wouldn't you speak out...

BUSH: Because there's gonna be-

LAUER: ...to calm a lot of rhetoric?

BUSH: Because there's a lot, there's a lot of events and a lot of opportunities for me to speak out over the next years and I have chosen not to. And the reason I've chosen not to is, I don't want do intrude on my successor's ability to get the job done. Inevitably if you were able to get me to answer this question, they will then compare that answer to what President Obama or other presidents might say on the issue. And I don't-

LAUER: Well then without saying whether they should build the community center or not, are you disappointed by the increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric in this country that we've seen...

BUSH: I think most Americans welcome freedom of religion and honor religions. I truly do. And the problem with the, the arena today is a few loud voices can dominate the discussion and I don't intend to be one of the voices in the discussion.

__________

And, finally, we can all start holding our breaths for the explosion of angry rhetoric from the "separation of church and state"ers against muslims...any minute now...any minute...

CAIR is thumping its chest over persuading a Clinton-appointed federal judge to temporarily block Oklahoma from enacting a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering Islamic law when deciding cases. Fully 70% of Oklahoma voters passed the landmark measure.

But CAIR has ignited a legal firestorm that will likely rage all the way to the Supreme Court. Thanks to CAIR's latest bit of lawfare, Americans will get to hear a long overdue debate not just about the constitutionality of such bans on Shariah law but about the constitutionality of Shariah law itself.

This is not a debate CAIR wants to have, since it ultimately will have to defend the indefensible. It claims in a press release that Shariah law is "a dynamic legal framework" derived from Islamic scripture "and analytical reasoning."...

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper let it slip out to a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter in 1993, before CAIR was formed.

CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad, wants Shariah law to replace the Constitution. "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. "The Quran should be the highest authority in America."

The AP's Careless Ignorance

Re: the ballot counting going on in AK, I come across this in an AP story:

The law calls for write-in ballots to have the oval filled in and either the candidate's last name or the name as it appears on their declaration of candidacy scrawled in — in this case, either "Murkowski" or "Lisa Murkowski."

Seriously? That's what the law calls for? Because I sort of completely and utterly doubt that is what the law says. Because this is the definition of "scrawl": "to write or draw awkwardly, hastily, or carelessly". And I really, really doubt that is what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote the rules on write-in votes and if I had to guess I'd say that it requires that the voter write the name clearly or legibly. The story itself just makes my brain hurt:

But the state is using discretion to discern voter intent, pointing to prior case law as their basis in doing so. State Division of Elections director Gail Fenumiai, the final arbiter of what's in or out during the counting process, said if the name is phonetic to Murkowski or there are minor misspellings, she's counting it for Murkowski. It's an effort aimed at not disenfranchising any voters.

Right. Just ask Floridians in 2000. In an effort to "not disenfranchise any voters" they end up disenfranchising ALL voters by counting someone's votes for a candidate even if they did not legally vote for that candidate with the potential (and I'm not being specific to the AK election here) that vote counters make someone elected when it's possible that the voters, the ones they didn't want to disenfranchise, voted to elect someone else, therefore they invalidate the vote of everyone.

A Fascinating Find - National Security Advisors

Wow, all it took was a little tickle from Ross Mackenzie to lead me to this treasure trove. Ross noted:

James Jones has resigned as President Obama's national security adviser. His replacement: Tom Donilon -- a political hack who won his national security spurs in 1980 as floor manager for Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention. Since then Donilon has done politics for Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. For six years beginning in 1999, he was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae. His brother is a counselor to Biden; his wife is Jill Biden's chief-of-staff. Oh, and Jones? In an earlier incarnation he was a Marine general -- and 32nd commandant of the Corps. From Jones to Donilon? Go figure.

Interesting. Now bear in mind that this is not an exhaustive research project, in fact I'm going to be pulling this stuff, because it's general info, from wikipedia. But it should be plenty good enough to make this point - in fact, I don't think I need to spell it out upfront, it's that obvious.

What I'm looking at are National Security Advisors and the men that picked them. Now I've decided that it makes no sense to go back any further than Nixon - before that we had some pretty hot wars going on that throw things off. Anyway, this is fascinating. I'm giving the president, their party, the person, and the best I can find here of their CV as it relates to being placed in this hugely important post.

Nixon (R): Henry Kissinger

Kissinger underwent basic training at Camp Croft in Spartanburg, South Carolina, where he was naturalized upon arrival. The Army sent him to study engineering at Lafayette College, Pennsylvania, but the program was canceled, and Kissinger was reassigned to the 84th Infantry Division...Kissinger saw combat with the division, and volunteered for hazardous intelligence duties during the Battle of the Bulge.

During the American advance into Germany, Kissinger was assigned to de-Nazify the city of Krefeld...Kissinger was then reassigned to the Counter Intelligence Corps, with the rank of Sergeant. He was given charge of a team in Hanover assigned to tracking down Gestapo officers and other saboteurs, for which he was awarded the Bronze Star. In June 1945, Kissinger was made commandant of a CIC detachment in the Bergstraße district of Hesse, with responsibility for de-Nazification of the district...

In 1946, Kissinger was reassigned to teach at the European Command Intelligence School at Camp King, continuing to serve in this role as a civilian employee following his separation from the Army.

Anybody want to argue with his rock solid credentials?

Ford (R): Kissinger, then Brent Scowcroft

He received his undergraduate degree and commission into the Army Air Forces from the United States Military Academy at West Point. Scowcroft also holds an M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia University...

He has had a long association with Henry Kissinger, having served as his assistant when Kissinger was the National Security Adviser under Nixon, from 1968...

In the course of his military career, Scowcroft held positions in the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Headquarters of the United States Air Force, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Other assignments included faculty positions at the United States Air Force Academy and the United States Military Academy at West Point, and Assistant Air Attaché in the American Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Scowcroft retired with the rank of Lieutenant General in the U.S. Air Force.

Any complaints? Didn't think so.

Carter (D): Zbigniew Brzezinski. Hard to really quote anything meaty. I'd admit in a heartbeat that he was more than qualified for a State Department position. But in terms of the military or defense, I'm not seeing anything useful. Seems he spent a lot of time arguing that what Nixon and Kissinger had done was bad. I don't mean to shortchange the man, but I honestly am not seeing much that would, at the time, have recommended the man for the position of National Security Advisor unless it's the fact that he was considered knowledgeable about the Cold War situation with the USSR - mainly from a political, not military/defense standpoint.

Reagan (R): Richard V. Allen

He served as a senior staff member of President Nixon's National Security Council in 1968 and served various Republican administrations up to and including that of President Reagan.

Then William P. Clark, Jr.

He served in the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps.

More on the State side, also, given that Allen was forced out over a bogus scandal, Clark seems like 'a guy' picked in a hurry that was a 'safe' replacement. He then went to Interior.

Then Robert McFarlane

Following graduation from the Naval Academy in 1959, McFarlane was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps where he served as an Artillery officer. He retired in 1979 with the rank of lieutenant colonel...

He taught Gunnery at the Army Advanced Artillery Course, and Executive Assistant to the Marine Corps' Operations Deputy from 1968–1971; in that position he prepared the Deputy for meetings with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During this assignment he was also the Action Officer in the Marine Corps Operations Division for Europe/NATO, the Middle East, and Latin America...

McFarlane was assigned to the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House, and at the conclusion of that assignment was selected as the Military Assistant to Henry Kissinger at the National Security Council. In this post, McFarlane dealt with intelligence exchanges with the People's Republic of China from 1973 to 1976, giving detailed intelligence briefings to China at the time of the Sino-Soviet split. He also accompanied Kissinger on his visits to China. In addition, McFarlane dealt with other aspects of foreign policy, including the Middle East, relations with the Soviet Union, and arms control. McFarlane was appointed by President Gerald Ford as his Special Assistant for National Security Affairs while a Lieutenant Colonel and was the Distinguished Service Medal in 1976.

Pretty clearly qualified.

Then John Poindexter

His significant staff assignments included: Executive Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations, Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy and Special Assistant for Systems Analysis to the Secretary of Defense. He reached the rank of Vice Admiral...

Poindexter went on to serve in the Reagan administration as Military Assistant, from 1981 to 1983, as Deputy National Security Advisor from 1983 to 1985...

Obvious qualifications.

Then Frank Carlucci

He was a Naval officer from 1952-54. He joined the Foreign Service, working for the State Department from 1956 until 1969...

Carlucci was Deputy Director of the CIA from 1978-1981, under CIA Director Stansfield Turner. Carlucci was deputy defense secretary from 1981 until 1983...

Obviously qualified. Went on to become Secretary of Defense.

Then Colin Powell. Need I bother? I don't think so.

Bush (R): Brent Scowcroft again. Still qualified.

Note that here it gets interesting...

Clinton (D): Anthony Lake

Lake joined the State Department in 1962, serving until 1970 as a Foreign Service Officer. Lake was an assistant to Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. during the Vietnam War. His State Department career included assignments as consul at the US Embassy, Saigon, South Vietnam (1963), vice consul in Huế (1964-1965) and special assistant to the assistant to the president for national security affairs (1969-1970) in the Nixon administration. In 1969, he accompanied National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger on his first secret meeting with North Vietnamese negotiators in Paris...

After Carter lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan, Lake became a professor, holding the Five College Professor of International Relations chair in Massachusetts (1981-1992). Lake taught at Amherst College. In 1984, he moved to Mount Holyoke College, where he taught courses on the Vietnam War, Third World revolutions, and American foreign policy.

Overall? Not that bad, right? Certainly not someone out of left field. Here's the interesting part...the 2nd pick by Clinton

Then Sandy Berger

Before joining the administration Berger had worked as an international trade attorney...

After the McGovern campaign, Berger gained experience working in a variety of government posts, including serving as Special Assistant to former New York City Mayor John Lindsay and Legislative Assistant to former U.S. Senator Harold Hughes of Iowa and Congressman Joseph Resnick of New York. He was also Deputy Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. State Department from 1977 to 1980 under Secretary of State Cyrus Vance during the Carter administration...

Nothing. There is next to nothing here to recommend the man apart from friendship with Clinton and his political ties.

Bush (R): Condoleezza Rice

Rice was hired by Stanford University as an assistant professor of political science (1981–1987). She was promoted to associate professor in 1987, a post she held until 1993. She was a specialist on the Soviet Union and gave lectures on the subject for the Berkeley-Stanford joint program led by UC Berkeley Professor George Breslauer in the mid-1980s...

With the election of George H. W. Bush, Scowcroft returned to the White House as National Security Adviser in 1989, and he asked Rice to become his Soviet expert on the United States National Security Council. According to R. Nicholas Burns, President Bush was "captivated" by Rice, and relied heavily on her advice in his dealings with Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin...

In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

From 1989 through March 1991 (the period of the fall of Berlin Wall and the final days of the Soviet Union), she served in President George H.W. Bush's administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In this position, Rice helped develop Bush's and Secretary of State James Baker's policies in favor of German reunification. She impressed Bush, who later introduced her to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the one who "tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union."

Like some predecessors, a lot to recommend her as a State candidate, and like others she ended up as the Secretary of that Department, but she was certainly qualified.

Then Stephen Hadley

During the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush...serving as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy from 1989–1993...In that position, he had responsibility for defense policy toward NATO and Western Europe, on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense, and arms control. He also participated in policy issues involving export control and the use of space. Hadley served as Secretary of Defense Cheney's representative in talks led by Secretary of State James Baker that resulted in the START I and START II Treaties.

Hadley previously served in a variety of other capacities in the defense and national security field, including serving from 1986–1987 as Counsel to the Special Review Board established by President Ronald Reagan to inquire into U.S. arms sales to Iran (the "Tower Commission"), as a member of the National Security Council staff under President Gerald Ford from 1974–1977, and as an analyst for the Comptroller of the Department of Defense from 1972–1974...

Hadley has been a member of the Department of Defense Policy Board, the National Security Advisory Panel to the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Board of Trustees of Analytical Services, Inc. ("ANSER")...

Obviously qualified.

Now we start closing that circle...

Obama (D): James L. Jones

During his military career, he served as Commander, United States European Command (COMUSEUCOM) and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) from 2003 to 2006 and as the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps from July 1999 to January 2003. Jones retired from the Marine Corps on February 1, 2007, after 40 years of service.

After retiring from the Marine Corps, Jones remained involved in national security and foreign policy issues. In 2007, Jones served as chairman of the Congressional Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, which investigated the capabilities of the Iraqi police and armed forces. In November 2007, he was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State as special envoy for Middle East security. He served as chairman of the Atlantic Council of the United States from June 2007 to January 2009...

Again, first pick not bad at all. Very qualified. Ah, but the 2nd pick, after the initial brights lights are dimmed?

Then Thomas E. Donilon

He is married to Cathy Russell, who has been named Chief of Staff to Jill Biden, and he is the brother of Mike Donilon, a lawyer and political consultant who has been chosen to serve as Counselor to Vice-President Joe Biden...

He worked as Executive Vice President for Law and Policy at Fannie Mae, the federally-chartered mortgage finance company, as a registered lobbyist from 1999 through 2005.

Do you see anything here to recommend the man as National Security Advisor in the midst of an ongoing battle against muslim extremists, 1 hot war, and 1 still-warm one? Exactly. 100% political crony pick with scads of ties to Obama and Biden...and Fannie Mae.

You're hard pressed to find anyone really unqualified under a Republican president since Nixon. Carter's was a bit odd, but not horrible. Clinton and Obama both, under the bright lights of their first administration assembly, picked decent candidates...and replaced them with seemingly completely unqualified political crony payback handout picks. Interesting.

Local Press Takes A Leak

So I think I've given them enough time. Both the Gazette and Times Union ran stories about the subject matter revealed in the "Wikileaks" document dumps.

Some subject matter.

As near as I can tell, neither mentioned that the documents provided further evidence that "weapons of mass destruction" were found in Iraq.

Not that I expected them to.

What World Am I In?

This is just more proof that the conservative work in this nation is far from over. I can't even wrap my head around this.

Last week the voters in Oklahoma added an amendment to their state constitution that said that judges, US judges working in US courts on US cases using US law, were forbidden from using foreign law, including islamic gay killing and woman beating sharia law, in their decisions...those would be decisions made on US soil about US cases involving US citizens involving US laws and contracts.

Get that? They said that in OK, part of the US, only US law would apply.

A federal judge just blocked the amendment.

In other words, a federal judge just said there was some reason why a US judge on US soil deciding US cases involving US law would could conceivably use foreign laws.

Hmmm...well US law clearly says that Bob may not beat Mary for not having sex with him...however Bob is a muslim, so I guess that makes it OK, even though he's in the US and there are US laws against it.

And we can probably find foreign laws that make abortion illegal...should judges use those?

What planet is this?? How can we be a nation of laws when we are not even allowed to know what the laws are?

Oh, so sorry, Mr. Smith, you see you thought you could sue Mr. Wilson for breaking that contract without paying you for losses? I guess you didn't realize when you and your notary were watching Mr. Wilson sign that contract in Oklahoma City for work in Oklahoma City that Mr. Wilson read that in Uganda a person can break a contract if they stub their toe on the first Wednesday after signing the contract. Well, he did and he is. Sorry, it says so right here in this Ugandan ruling from 1965. The case is dismissed. Oh, and you have to pay for his toe surgery.

Keep Extending Unemployment?

Does continually extending unemployment keep people from working? The TU seems to say, 'yes'. This is in their 'wall street journal' section for today:

"I am ashamed that I'm still drawing unemployment," Ms. Cherry says. "I had no idea that somebody could do it that long...

And if the unemployment pay runs out? "I would go get a job at Wal-Mart or 7-Eleven," she says.

How many of these stories, people openly admitting they're not getting jobs because they're getting unemployment, have to show up before the left admits it's true?

editoriaLIES

I have asked the TU to correct today's editorial that contains a false statement used to smear TX Rep. Barton. Correction request submitted as follows:

Sunday's editorial ("Congress goes back into denial") contains at least one factual error that needs to be corrected as soon as possible. The editorial states that Rep. Barton of Texas "apologized to BP for the White House's investigation of the Gulf oil spill". This is demonstrably untrue. Rep. Barton clearly approved of the investigation, both by Congress and the AG's office, but apologized for the White House's demand that BP set up a fund to pay out claims before damages were assessed. Rep Barton's actual words that contradict the revisionist statement in this editorial:

"...with the Attorney General of the United States who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people...

...I apologize, I do not want to live in a country where at any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that...amounts to a shakedown."

Mr. Barton, in no uncertain terms, is apologizing for the White House's "political pressure" re: the spill fund. These statements clearly show that the statement that he apologized for "the White House's investigation" is incorrect and, in that it is used to smear Mr. Barton (there can be no denying this is the intent), it should be corrected.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

===

Update - The Times Union ran a decent correction on 11/9/10. Thank you Ms. Crupi and cast.

Fall Down

Don't forget that clocky thing Saturday night...fall down or something. I'll pretty much pledge my vote* to whatever candidate promises to eliminate this ridiculous waste of money and effort.

(* common sense restrictions apply)

Your Random Election Wrap-Up And Preview

Dan Gainor hits the high points (original is all linky, so check it out):

Congratulations to the GOP, which just trounced both Democrats and liberal journalists alike.

There’s only one hitch: Somebody hit the reset button and everything started over again like the movie “Groundhog Day.” The campaign for 2012 has already begun with a vengeance...

The right has just endured nearly two years of being called racists, violent racists, Nazis and worse by the left. And yet liberals and the journalists who support them want to blame conservatives for driving the tone into the muck. Tea parties, town halls, broken promises, trillions in debt and bills no one bothered to read. None of that matters. To battle Obama means journalists have replaced the scarlet “A” with an “R” for racist...

Two reporters from a CBS Alaska affiliate were fired for discussing/planning how to make Senate candidate Joe Miller look bad. They debated reporting on a child molester attending one of his rallies. It’s no surprise, given that level of neutrality among the press, that Miller lost.

By its content, the 2010 wasn’t the most offensive in American history. It didn’t have to be. The online assaults, the media slanders and the the outright lies all traveled at speeds unknown to previous races...

So-called journalists went digging into O’Donnell’s high school spelling but ignored what her opponent did in college. This was the identical strategy news outlets used in the 2008 presidential race where The New York Times savaged John McCain’s wife Cindy for her legal drug use and never did a similar investigation into Obama’s own confessed drug activity...

That means the outlook for the right is bleak unless conservatives are willing to fight with everything they have. If a TV network like Comedy Central throws a major rally right before an election to boost Democrats, conservatives should immediately go after its advertisers. When the HuffingtonPost/Nation/DailyKos target a conservative, the right should be prepared to fight fire with fire.

No, that’s not the recipe for a pleasant, friendly election. We’re only a couple days into 2012 and Jon Stewart’s “civility” fantasy is already as ridiculous as his “moderate” rally. If the right wants to win in 2012, they will have to fight every single day from now until then. If conservatives won’t, they might as well give up now and spare us the robocalls.

Obama Didn't Get The Message - Did MSNBC?

One story is a blip...two is interesting.

MSNBC suspends Olbermann over political contributions

MSNBC suspended "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann Friday after the news that he donated to three Democratic candidates.

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Politico reported Friday that Olbermann gave the maximum individual donation of $2,400 to three candidates in Tuesday's election: Arizona Reps. Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva and Senate hopeful Jack Conway, who lost in Kentucky to Republican Rand Paul. (Grijalva appeared on Olbermann's "Countdown" on Oct. 28, the same day the host donated to his campaign; Conway was last a guest in May)...

Olbermann, a liberal commentator, gives his opinions each night on the air. But NBC News editorial staffers -- like journalists at most news organizations -- are forbidden from giving to political candidates. Also, Olbermann anchored election coverage Tuesday night without disclosing that he'd given to candidates who were running for office.

By punishing the network's biggest star, Griffin showed how little tolerance there is for hosts to make undisclosed political contributions while covering those political races...

It's ironic that Olbermann gave to political candidates after criticizing Fox News because its owner, Rupert Murdoch, gave $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association. "Fox News has put its money where its mouth is," Olbermann said in an August segment that questioned the network's impartiality.

In October, Olbermann again raised the issue of Murdoch's donations, during an interview with Democratic Rep. James Clyburn. Olbermann asked whether there was "a legislative response to the idea that there is a national cable news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view and actually starts to shill for partisan causes and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party."

MSNBC’s election night lineup draws criticism

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and conservative media critic Bernie Goldberg slammed MSNBC on Wednesday for having the network's top liberal hosts and commentators lead election night coverage.

Goldberg praised CNN and Fox News for having nonpartisan anchors give results, with commentators on the right and left providing analysis. But he said MSNBC "jumped the shark" with its team, which included Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell and Eugene Robinson in the studio, along with Ed Schultz in Las Vegas.

Matthews' interview with Minnesota GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann was the MSNBC moment that has drawn the most attention and criticism. Matthews used the interview mainly to focus on comments Bachmann made more than two years ago about investigating "un-American attitudes" in Congress. Eventually he became so exasperated with her that he wondered aloud if the lawmaker had been "hypnotized."...

Goldberg echoed many of those complaints in his appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor." "They broke the cardinal rule of journalism: You don't have partisans covering hard news events, and certainly not when the hard news event is the biggest news story of the year—a national election," said Goldberg, author of several books critical of the mainstream media...

But it wasn't only conservatives—who aren't exactly MSNBC's target audience—who questioned the election night team. Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik said that the behavior of MSNBC's studio analysts/anchors was "outrageous" and that it crossed "a line in the way that mainstream media engages government, the electoral process and the citizenry."...

The question of having MSNBC's partisan hosts anchor news coverage became an issue during the 2008 political conventions after some of its top on-air personalities clashed with one another. A couple weeks later, NBC's David Gregory was tapped to anchor MSNBC's coverage of major political news events. But as the 2008 election rolled around, the network came up with a new solution: Gregory would "anchor" while Matthews and Olbermann would "host" the coverage...

Fox News, rather than having top-rated hosts like Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck anchor election coverage, went instead with Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly. But the network still gave ample airtime to its stable of conservative commentators, including Karl Rove, Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin.

Reap. Sow. AARP.

The best part? If they were given the choice they'd do the same thing all over again-

AARP’s endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Now the seniors’ lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

The rest of the email was mostly things like, 'good job pushing this super deal on America, we're really proud of all of you, the way you ignored the people telling you that you were pushing for the requirement that you yourselves pay more for health insurance was truly spectacular - without your efforts you might have seen what was in the bill before you tried to sell it or before it was passed. keep up the good work! get ready for next month's seminar series where we'll be helping you prepare for your informational sessions to help everyone understand why everyone will be better off when their electricity costs "necessarily skyrocket"! kudos!'

Unintentionally Hilarious

Love this headline:


Obama interpretation: "I didn't explain all the wonderful things I've done for the little people well enough. Oh well, I'll go do some hard work in India now with a couple hundred friends."

American's more realistic interpretation: "Nope, based on what he's said since Tuesday he still doesn't get it...and now to prove it he's going on another vacation! Well, maybe the 'message will get through' in 2012."

Costs And Benefits

There is still a lot of gloating by the left (odd in the face of the blistering, historic smackdown they just absorbed) that "the Tea Party cost the GOP the Senate". The common wisdom is that, by running Tea Party conservatives instead of shoo-in RINOs like Castle in DE, the GOP didn't win the Senate. If, they say, the stupid conservatives haven't been so adamant about running people that would support their values and concerns, they could have won the Senate.

I gotta say one thing to that: So what?

Look, I understand the issue. With the majority they could control committees, have more control over legislation, etc etc. Fine.

But you GOT to look at it this way - at the end of the day, would all that have been worth it if, when you did bring something up to a vote, "your" guys voted with the Democrats??

What's all the other stuff worth if people in your "majority", RINOs, still vote for cra* like the porkulus or inept, unqualified Supreme Court nominees?

Squat, that's what.

Without people that will actually support their caucus instead of selling them and their constituents out, a majority is just a word.

Real History - Jobs

If I recall correctly, along with inexperienced and incompetent, the right correctly noted that Obama was ignorant well before he was elected anyway. Not sure how much evidence some people need to stop supporting his dangerous ignorance.

President Obama seems to be signaling that he’s not inclined to act by downplaying the economic significance of the tax cuts. “From 2001 to 2009, we cut taxes pretty significantly, and we just didn’t see the kind of expansion that is going to be necessary in terms of driving the unemployment rate down significantly,” the President said yesterday.

2 years of bleating about jobs jobs jobs, jobs created, jobs saved, green jobs happy jobs sad jobs government jobs private jobs jobs jobs jobs. What a handy reference:

If you were wondering whether Tuesday's kick in the crotch was going to wake him up, well, there's your answer.

NO TAX CUTS FOR YOU!

Headlines That Make You Go "WTF"

"Election doesn't end major discord for GOP, Obama"

WTF? Was it supposed to? Other things the election didn't end:

World hunger.

Middle East unrest.

Whale hunting.

Rap music.

Reality TV shows.

MSNBC.

Do It Up, Tonko

Well, here's your chance, Tonko, to move forward "together". Let's see how many times you work with Gibson and his friends and vote for their bills as you show us how to work "together".

Back To Regular Programming - Obama's Economy Still Sucks

and picking economic winners and losers from DC is still disastrous socialism: Solar-Panel Maker to Close a Factory and Delay Expansion

Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar-panel maker that won half a billion dollars in federal aid to build a state-of-the-art robotic factory, plans to announce on Wednesday that it will shut down an older plant and lay off workers.

The cost-cutting move, which will reduce the company’s previously announced production capacity, is a sign of the notable shift in the prospects for cutting-edge American solar companies, which now face intense price competition from Chinese manufacturers that use more established photovoltaic technologies.

Just seven weeks ago, Solyndra opened Fab 2, a $733 million factory in Fremont, Calif., to make its high-tech solar panels. The new plant was supposed to be the first phase of a rapid expansion of the company.

Instead, Solyndra has decided to shutter the old plant and postpone plans to expand Fab 2, which was built with a $535 million federal loan guarantee...

When Solyndra filed for an initial public stock offering in December, it estimated it would have a total production capacity of 610 megawatts by 2013 if its two plants were fully built out. The company now expects it have capacity of 285 to 300 megawatts by 2013.

Solyndra abandoned plans for the stock offering in June, citing market conditions.

The company is the most prominent of a wave of Silicon Valley solar start-ups that hoped to transform the economics of the industry. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Energy Secretary Steven Chu helped break ground on Fab 2 last year, and President Obama made an appearance at the unfinished factory in May to extol Solyndra’s innovative technology...

Solyndra said it would lay off around 40 employees and not renew contracts for about 150 temporary workers as a result of the consolidation. The closing of the old factory, called Fab 1, will save the company more than $60 million in capital expenditures, executives said.

For those keeping track, that would be $500,000,000 of our tax dollars that saved or created destroyed 190 jobs.

Today's Map

Via FoxNew's election HQ:


Kinda makes you blue, doesn't it, Madame Speaker?


His work done, Obama is, surprise! going on vacation, again. This time to the taxpayer tune of $200 MILLION PER DAY (not really - but the scary thing is that you have to wonder).

What She Said

Jennifer Rubin:

Did Obama help anyone? Probably not. He fundraised for Barbara Boxer, but the race turned out to be not close. California seems determined to pursue liberal statism to its logical conclusion (bankruptcy). He made multiple visits to Ohio, and Democrats lost the Senate, the governorship, and five House seats. He went to Wisconsin. Russ Feingold lost, as did Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett and two House Democrats...

What does it mean? This is a win of historic proportions, the largest in the House since World War II. There is no spinning this one; Nancy Pelosi presided over the destruction of her Democratic majority because she failed to appreciate that not every place is San Francisco...But before the GOP establishment gets too full of itself, it should recall that the Tea Party ginned up enthusiasm and made many of those big House and gubernatorial wins possible. And finally, the story of the night that had largely evaded discussion before the election is the sweep in gubernatorial races. Key battleground states in 2012 will have Republican governors. About 10 more states will now probably experience what GOP reformist government looks like, and a whole bunch of states may now opt out of the individual mandate in ObamaCare. Oh, and redistricting just got a whole lot easier for the GOP.

You’ll hear that this was a throw-the-bums-out year. But only a few Republicans were tossed. You’ll hear that this is good for Obama; don’t believe it. He and his aggressive, left-leaning agenda have been rebuked. And you’ll hear that Obama is a goner in 2012 and that the GOP has rebounded; that part is poppycock, too. Obama can rescue himself, if he is able and willing.

Thanks For The Memories, Nancy

Remember these scenes after the Democrats rammed through legislation loathed by a majority of Americans?

Good's Perfect Enemy

You know the old saw about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, right? Old saw, meet TEA party.

The left, in no uncertain terms being hit with a tidal wave of voters' remorse and losing BIG yesterday, is now receiving the aid and comfort of the media. The media is telling them, and us, that things aren't that bad - that conservatives, and the TEA party, actually failed yesterday because a few conservative TEA party candidates for the Senate lost to established candidates or in deeply liberal areas.

This is, to be blunt, bullsh**. Go back in the past weeks and months and look at the rightweb. There was a giddy sort of euphoria that if everything went absolutely perfectly correctly the GOP could retake the Senate in a year when mostly deep blue Dem seats were up for grabs. If they nailed absolutely everything, they could do it. But, in reality, they'd probably only get within a few seats of a majority. This is exactly what happened.

Now, in desperation, the left and their media are proclaiming that the TEA party cost the GOP what is now called a "pivotal goal". This is bullsh**. Taking the Senate was always an absolute hail mary. The "pivotal goal" was always the House, where every seat turns over every 2 years. From the House the GOP can stop most, if not all, of the worst Obamanitiatives. True, they can't repeal ObamaCare, but in the House the GOP now controls the government's pursestrings - and that means they can refuse to fund implementation of ObamaCare, and I suspect they will.

Three more points.

1. As late as yesterday as I crawled around the web the political pollsters and pundits were predicting GOP gains in the House to be a solid 50 and, for some, a solid 60. Again, the loopy-est hopefuls were blithering about 100 seats (as Dick Morris warned, the GOP underestimated its wave and lost the opportunity to pick up more close seats - look to our north were Owens is going back to Congress by 5,000 votes while Hoffman, who I suspect has now lost whatever goodwill he previously engendered, pulled out too late, but still pulled 10,000 votes from the GOP candidate (not a phony GOP candidate this time) - flatly costing the GOP that seat). Anyway, the final tally ended up being a net gain of around 70 seats - or about 10 better than expected. That's huge. That means in about 10 cases a challenger was able to pick up an unexpected seat. So to even begin to try to revise history and call this election a failure for conservatives, conservatism, or the TEA party is bullsh**.

2. Whether every TEA party candidate won or not, to imply that the enthusiasm and rededication to being a part of their government that the party fostered in so many Americans is in any way a failure because they didn't 'win it all' is foolish and should be simply laughed at. Completely unknown candidates with no political background took established, name-brand, career politicians with huge pocketbooks and union machine support to the brink yesterday even when losing. To say that is a failure is ridiculous. The perfect (claiming that only total domination made the effort worthwhile) is the foolish enemy of the good (increasing participation a LOT and capturing 10 more seats than expected in the House, etc.) and no one should be able to make the claim otherwise without being laughed at. Can you even imagine the press trying to claim that the Democrats failed in 2008 because they didn't win every race or because some liberal candidates weren't able to win conservative states/districts? This was a TEA party win, big time.

3. Going forward I see mostly positives. The GOP now has the impetus to stand up to the socialist machine devouring America. Don't get hung up by the rabid right or left screaming that there is or isn't a mandate. There is no mandate here for anyone except for the mandate that people don't want what they've been getting for too long. The only mandate is that they want their government back (except in places like NY, CA, VT, and MA, but we already knew that). They do, however, have the impetus to be a check and a balance to try to tip this nation's government back to the center if they can. They can't get it to the right, that will need to wait until 2012. And there is a LOT of new, conservative blood in the House that will NOT allow its leaders to return to where it was in the mid-00's. That's not what they were sent to DC for and they know it - they know it because just a couple of years ago these were non-political people that were the ones doing the shouting about their leaders not doing what they were voted in to do and not career politicians that haven't held a private job since they got out of college. That's another victory for the TEA party. With the GOP pushing things in the House there is now NO WAY that Obama will go along with any of it since he still has the Senate. Which means gridlock, which is a slight positive for businesses. It also means that the rhetoric will not change and people will remain engaged for 2012.

Around The Nation

Way to go, MA! You re-elected your state embarrassment (well, one of them) in the governor's mansion...and you voted for higher sales taxes! Plus you're sending Barney Frank back to Washington! I'm not sure I can blame you for not wanting him back.

And how about our good friends in CA? Well, sadly CA will be continuing to challenge NY for many worst-in-the-nation standings. They've managed to re-elect a senator that feels the need to denigrate a member of the military for having the temerity to address here with...the high honorific 'ma'am'. And, yes, while we elected a liberal, pro-government, anti-business governor that's pretended to be pro-growth, you (re)elected a man that claims we need more people on welfare! Bra-freaking-vo, CA!

Nikki Haley takes over the governor's mansion in SC, that's pretty sweet.

AK joins other states that used to be conservative but seem to be losing that as I have to assume that it is everyone but Republicans that went for ex-RINO Murkowski over a solid, sane conservative candidate.

That's about all I've had time to digest...

Not Done

The work is not done. The work has begun. The work of Americans retaking control of their government has begun. The struggle will now commence for two years. For two years those given their shot at listening to Americans and remembering that our nation was not founded upon the belief that the government is in charge. They must remember this for the next two years and behave accordingly. If they, they will be rewarded - and America will be rewarded with the beginning of recovery. If they don't they will be replaced.

The work has begun. The mission, for some, is accomplished. Yet, as Bush said years ago, the work is not done, just one mission for one group has be accomplished. They, and we, move on to the next one.

Remember in November 2012. Keep working.

You know what I think I'm happiest about this morning? Not about the socialists that lost. Not about the bigots and hypocrites that had their yaps shut. Not that "the GOP" did well. No, what I am most happy about is that Americans are finally taken back their government. For the moment we are not content to be "sheeple" told by our betters what to do as they snottily mock our beliefs down their nose from their teleprompters, telling use that we "gotta sit in the back" and are "enemies" that must be "punished". People running for office that never had...never even dreamed of...before (some good, some...not). The absolute "in your face" manner that 'common people' took up the reins of our government again, snatching them from the elitists of both major parties, boldly and intelligently explaining what they believed and why in the face of absolutely vicious and vile smears from all over the left, including the media...and did not back down. That's the best part for me.