Why Not?

In the spirit of, well, this, given my crummy mood, how about, well, this:

"1975 or 1976 — ice cream scooper, Baskin-Robbins — Honolulu — Obama claims to have lost his taste for ice cream during this, his first job"

Remember that?

How 'bout now?

Now?

Misleading 'Violent Language' On YNN

YNN's (Channel 9 News) story about the National Organization for Marriage's campaign to replace Senators that flopped their votes on redefining marriage in NY contained what sounded like a quote from the group. A quote using violent language or imagery.

The reporter said, while showing a screenshot of the group's website, that there were a group of Senators "on the bullseye" (sic) for the campaign.

Again, the same type of language that the mainstream press had a nutty about after the Gifford's shooting, despite just about every campaign ever having used the language.

Anyway, here's the website they were showing:


See any "bullseye"s? See anything about "bullseye"s?

Nope. Nevertheless, YNN's reporter attributed this "violent language/imagery" to the group, despite the fact that no such imagery was used.

One might almost be inclined to call this a smear. Thanks, YNN.

Mainstream Media. What's The Point Anymore?

Confrontational Obama rebukes GOP on debt talks

I guess this is a different Obama than the 'hey, I can't be bothered to let this stuff interfere with my golf, so why don't we talk about this little $14 trillion deficit thing over 18, Speaker Boehner?'. Note that it took four AP writers to come up with this:

In a blistering rebuke of Republicans, President Barack Obama on Wednesday pressed lawmakers to accept tax increases as part of a deal to cut the nation's deficits and avoid a crippling government default.

Rebuking Republicans? AKA the party that actually produced a draft budget? And as for them "accept"ing tax increases, Obama couldn't even get Congress to pass tax increases in 2010 with huge Democrat majorities!

Senators from Obama's own Democratic Party quickly said they'd consider canceling next week's July 4 recess to work on a possible agreement, and as the day went on senators said they assumed they would stay.

These 'eager beaver' Democrat Senators, you may recall, are the same 'eager beaver' Democrat Senators that HAVEN'T OFFERED UP A BUDGET FOR TWO YEARS!

Obama accused Republicans of intransigence over tax hikes, comparing their leaders to procrastinating children and painting them as putting millionaires, oil companies and jet owners ahead of needy students.

Yeaaaaah....that 'jet owner' thing? Guess where that came from. If you guessed 'Obama and the Democrats' porkulus stimulus' pin a rose on your nose.

Obama insisted he wouldn't support a deal to cut the deficit unless it includes higher tax revenue, not just spending cuts. Republicans have refused to consider that. The stalemate threatens to derail an extension of the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit, which in turn could lead the government into an unprecedented default.

No, it couldn't. The Constitution requires the government to meet its debts, even if that meant cutting other spending, including on 'entitlements'.

"They need to do their job," Obama said of Republicans. "Now's the time to go ahead and make the tough choices."

Really? REALLY? The Republicans passed a budget with "tough choices" in it, including the suggestions of Obama's deficit commission. His "budget", the vague set of ideas codified in, well, a speech, ignored his own deficit commission and couldn't garner a single Senate vote because it was so utterly unserious.

Professing optimism — but with a bite — the president said, "Call me naive, but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead."

Translation: 'I'm incredibly naive, because my expectation is that, even though I'm President, someone else is going to lead, because I haven't got a f***ing clue what I'm doing, so let's play golf!'

Conrad said he would unveil a Senate Democratic budget that Democratic senators on his panel signed off on Wednesday. He said there would not be a vote on the plan.

And the best the Democrats in the Senate can do is whip up some ridiculous 'budget' THAT THEY WON'T EVEN VOTE ON!

The House, under Republican control, has been in recess this week but is to return on Tuesday. Democrats hold a majority in the Senate.

You might think that ONE of the FOUR writers would think here would be a good time to mention that the Democrats in the Senate have failed to produce a budget FOR TWO YEARS!

Obama said even his daughters, 12-year-old Malia and 10-year-old Sasha, get their homework done ahead of deadline. "Congress can do the same thing," the president said. "If you know you've got to do something, just do it."

Nice little cover up here, Obama actually said that his daughter was 13, screwing up her age! FOUR AP writers not only ignore this dimwitted mouthing, but PRETEND IT NEVER HAPPENED BY MISQUOTING OBAMA! Whoops! Down the memory hole!

Obama sought to reframe the entire debt debate in terms people would care about, accusing Republicans of protecting tax breaks for corporate jet owners on the backs of college students who would lose their federal aid...

Again, that would be the OBAMA AND DEMOCRAT TAX BREAK FOR CORPORATE JET OWNERS.

...even though there is no direct relationship between that tax provision and any particular budget cut. He spoke of eliminating tax cuts that favor the rich and oil companies...

Except, of course, unmentioned by any of the FOUR AP writers, is that no such tax cuts exist - the rich pay far MORE in taxes as a group and oil companies actually get by with far LESS generous "tax cuts" (they're not) than other industries.

At his first formal White House news conference in more than three months, Obama also pushed back against Republican criticism of the U.S.-aided military campaign in Libya, saying congressional concerns about consultation were not substantive.

Ummm...Really? Concerns directly related to explicit authority granted Congress by the Constitution that Obama has unconstitutionally (as argued) seized from another branch of government is not only called by him "not substantive", but these FOUR lapdogs seem to agree as they cannot seem to find a single objection to his view via anecdote nor quote.

And he even took a sharp tone toward the business leaders that his White House has tried to court. "The business community is always complaining about regulations," he said in response to one question. "Frankly, they want to be able to do whatever they think is going to maximize their profits."

'And I think they're still beating their wives!' said the man who's never run or even really worked for a money-making business.

"Here in Washington, a lot of people say a lot of things to satisfy their base or to get on a cable news," he said, "Hopefully, leaders at a certain point rise to the occasion and they do the right thing for the American people."

Isn't the LAST thing someone that's AWOL as a leader should do is keep talking about HOPING a leader will just sort of SHOW UP when THEY were elected and are being paid to BE THAT PERSON?

Nature Doesn't Follow Models

Those that deny that climate change is natural and mostly unaffected by people simple reject this data, this evidence, this sample analysis...because it doesn't fit with their models or belief system.

They started bad-mouthing this ice core CO2 research (that shows CO2 levels lagging temperature changes by many, even hundreds, of years) from the beginning, it seems, because it is so damaging to their beliefs and so contrary to their manipulated and manipulative models that can't predict the past, let alone the future. They consider it absolutely off limits and unworthy of discussion (see page 25 of this transcript from March 14, 2007).

Liberals: "Didn't We Give Up On The American Dream?"

Odd admission here from disgraced socialist Van Jones via MorOn.org. Basically in their latest email he's indicating that liberals are coming up to him and saying 'Why are you talking about the American Dream? We gave up on that, didn't we, when we decided to hand our lives over to the government?" This is all just incredibly odd. They want to become proud American conservatives now? If that's the case, welcome, I guess:

I'm Van Jones, and last week, I joined with MoveOn to launch Rebuild the Dream. This big new project is dedicated to creating an economy that works for ALL of us—and to stopping the attacks on the middle class and working Americans.

"ALL of us"? Even rich people? Wait, after all this time attacking the middle class as idiots in flyover country bitterly clinging to guns and religion with their sloped foreheads...you're going to stop attacking them? Really?

Since we launched last week, the question folks keep asking me is: "Why are you talking about the American Dream? Didn't we all give up on that a long time ago?"

Sadly, they're right. Too many of us have stopped talking about our dreams—stopped thinking in terms of what we're really capable of achieving in this country. I believe that's actually part of the problem.

Really? You're finally acknowledging that you and your ilk are "part of the problem"? In that case you're just one short step from reality, that you're most of the problem.

For me, the American Dream is something my dad instilled in me. He climbed out of poverty up the ladder of opportunity—then he put my sister and me through college.

Sooooo, basically the exact opposite of what Obama and your new friends in MorOn.org, AFL-CIO, and SEIU want? Because they're certainly not advocating for this crazy concept you seem to be advocating - social mobility, hard work, and getting ahead by pulling oneself up by the bootstraps. You're not trying to copy the Tea Party, are you Van? You're trying to join?

As I've traveled around the country talking to thousands of people over the past year, it's become clear that we, as a country, are letting that ladder fall down. People have told me over and over that the American Dream is slipping further and further away for them and their families.

We need to stop reckless greed at the top from killing our dreams. That's the inspiration behind Rebuild the Dream.

Odd. Which ideological group's social policies have taken control of our nation in the past couple of generations? Welfare, government involvement in our lives and businesses, education...would these have come to be dominated by conservatives, Van...or liberals? Really?

Because the American Dream used to mean something in this country. That if you put in a hard day's work, you could expect good American wages, benefits, a dignified retirement, and a better life for your kids. Everyone wasn't in the middle class, but everyone believed that—given a fair shot—they could make it there. That's the American Dream I'm fighting for.

DANGER! DANGER VAN JONES! BEEEEEP! WHOOOOOP WHOOOOOP WHOOOOP! Annnnnd we're back to socialism. Actually, the American Dream is that hard work can make you rich, free, and happy. The American Dream is not and has never been that we all eventually become the same, that no one is rich, that no one is poor, that we all end up in the same place no matter what kind of "hard work" we do. You know who's dream that is? That would be Karl Marx's dream, Van. And you were doing so well! Go to a couple of Tea Party rallies, Van, they'll teach you about the American Dream, not the Soviet Union Dream.

And just by the by...how does one reconcile "put in a hard day's work" with "Give them the wealth!", Van?

MorOns Still Flailing

The MorOn.org movement seems to be on life support. Previous emails indicate a desperate attempt to 'partner' with other similarly weakened organizations in an attempt to stay relevant. Now it seems they've got a new idea...see if you can follow this:

1) Start a new, original movement. Do this by copying the successful Tea Party movement.

2) The movement should be "people-powered", which I guess is 'progressive' (aka-'liberal')-speak for 'grass roots', just like the Tea Party! Do this by having it organized by massive corporate labor outfits.

3) When in doubt...be original and copy Newt Gingrich and come up with a catchy "contract" that explains why you want to do the things that Obama and the Democrats just finished doing between 2008 and 2010...when they were soundly beaten from coast to coast (OK, not so much in the People's Republic of California). Do this with a tongue-twisting mangled mashup "contract".

4) Be like the amorphous Tea Party, a group without real leaders. Do this by making a prominent, disgraced socialist, forced out of even Obama's administration, the head of your movement.

Dear MoveOn member,

"Can liberals start their own tea party?"

That was a Washington Post headline on Friday—and it's a good question.
Last week, green jobs visionary Van Jones introduced a new organization focused on progressive economic solutions: Rebuild the Dream. Rebuild the Dream is joining with organizations including MoveOn, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, the Campaign for Community Change, and many more, to launch a new effort to build up a people-powered movement to counter the influence of the tea party.

The first step for this emerging American Dream movement is creating our own blueprint for fixing the economy—an all-new Contract for the American Dream.

All in all, I can't blame you for being confused. Apparently the "Dream" they want to rebuild is the heady days of Reagan-W. Bush...before Obama did all the things they want to do again now, which destroyed "the Dream".

Maybe what they need is their own radio network! Or getting a far leftwinger elected President! With massive liberal majorities in Congress including "pro-life" Democrats that vote for more abortions!

Oh, and I guess they must be done mocking, denigrating, and dismissing the failed, dying, dead, unpopular, uninfluential, and disgraced Tea Party what with their attempts to copy and "counter" it.

I Am A Democrat Because My Smartphone Told Me I Was

Or something like that.

Obliterated, I mean utterly deconstructed, here: link.

Oh, and then Ace gathers up the remains, sets them on fire, and launches the ashes into a crack in the earth: College Democrats Unleash Powerful New Ad: We're Democrats, Because We're Upper-Middle-Class White Kids, But We Also Ran Into These Two Black People At A Macy Gray Concert

For A Few Dollars More

Your Random Saturday

Do tell, Mr. Sowell:

Someone needs to say to those who want Social Security and Medicare to continue on unchanged: "Don't you understand? The money is not there any more."

Many retired people remember the money that was taken out of their paychecks for years and feel that they are now entitled to receive Social Security benefits as a right. But the way Social Security was set up was so financially shaky that anyone who set up a similar retirement scheme in the private sector could be sent to federal prison for fraud...

Retired seniors have the least to fear from a reform of Social Security, since neither political party is about to take away what these retirees already have and are relying on.

Despite irresponsible political ads showing an old lady in a wheel chair being dumped over a cliff, the people who are really in danger of being dumped over a cliff are the younger generation, who are paying into Social Security but are unlikely to get back anything like what they are paying in...

Since the law does not allow private pension plans to be set up in the financially irresponsible way Social Security is, that is where young people's money should be put, if they ever want to see that money again when they reach retirement age.

America's New Racists

Today all that has changed. Most racist assaults are committed by blacks. What's worse is there're blacks, still alive, who lived through the times of lynching, Jim Crow laws and open racism who remain silent in the face of it.

Last year, four black Skidmore College students yelled racial slurs while they beat up a white man because he was dining with a black man. Skidmore College's first response was to offer counseling to one of the black students charged with the crime. In 2009, a black Columbia University professor assaulted a white woman during a heated argument about race relations. According to interviews and court records obtained and reported by Denver's ABC affiliate (12/4/2009), black gangs roamed downtown Denver verbally venting their hatred for white victims before assaulting and robbing them during a two-month crime wave. Earlier this year, four black girls beat a white girl at a McDonald's, and the victim suffered a seizure. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered an emergency shutdown of the beaches in Chicago because mobs of blacks were terrorizing families. According to the NBC affiliate there (6/8/2011), a gang of black teens stormed a city bus, attacked white victims and ran off with their belongings.

Racist black attacks are not only against whites but also against Asians. In San Francisco, five blacks beat an 83-year-old Chinese man to death. They threw a 57-year-old woman off a train platform. Two black Oakland teenagers assaulted a 59-year-old Chinese man; the punching knocked him to the ground, killing him. At Philly's South Philadelphia High School, Asian students report that black students routinely pelt them with food and beat, punch and kick them in school hallways and bathrooms as they hurl racial epithets such as "Hey, Chinese!" and "Yo, Dragon Ball!"...

...Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons. Chicago Tribune Editor Gerould Kern recently said that the paper's reason for censorship was to "guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion."...

Tragically, black youngsters -- who are seething with resentments, refusing to accept educational and other opportunities unknown to blacks yesteryear -- will turn out to be the larger victims in the long run...

IBD's right and the right was all along, America elected a man to vote 'present!' for 4 years and play golf while America collapses:

Instead, he issued a bogus budget plan in February and gave a debt speech in April that lacked any details and essentially called the GOP plan un-American. Then he palmed off the job of hammering out a debt reduction deal to Biden. That's it.

You're Understandably Confused

Why Gas Prices Should Be Lower Soon

Oil markets were roiled today when the United States and the International Energy Agency jointly announced that they would release a combined 60 million barrels of oil into international markets over the coming month.

You're right to be confused by this round of reporting about how wonderful it is that Obama is lowering our gas prices and isn't Obama great and by the way you should re-elect Obama.

But you're probably not.

No. Wait.

YOU probably are. But your neighbors and friends and co-workers that don't pay close enough attention to what's happening around them might not be.

Then again, if you read this blog and stuff like it, you know full well what's going on.

Let's start again.

If the rain lets up enough for any BBQing this weekend and the subject comes up whilst enjoying tasty flame roasted meat, feel free to educate those around you on what's going on here. Under most circumstances, when gas prices go up, the left and their megaphones (the press) start wailing about GOUGING AT THE PUMPS! and such malarkey. Hell, even now Schumer is out there looking like a grade A ass trying to get oil companies investigated. What most people will not see is why Schumer is an ass (at least in this case).

Re-read the statement above. What is being done? Are they handing out gas? They are not. They are releasing oil. Oil that must be refined into gas.

THEREFORE they (the left and their press) must believe that the path to cheaper gas is cheaper oil. Therefore they must believe that the reason for spiking gas is spiking OIL, not:

gouging by refiners (because this wouldn't change that); OR
gouging by retailers (because this wouldn't change that).

In other words, suddenly when Obama is the supplier, they find belief and confidence in the laws of supply and demand - that if they make more oil available it will become cheaper.

NORMALLY the press is quick to ridicule any suggestion that oil prices, demonstrably the cause of rising and falling gas prices, are actually the cause of rising and falling gas prices. Instead it's "price manipulation by BIG OIL" or outright handouts to GOP politicians by BIG OIL as they routinely sabotage their own profits by magically lowering gas prices to get Republicans elected (no, I don't understand how that's supposed to work, either, especially when one of the nation's major retailers uses American-hating dictator Hugo Chavez' oil).

Apparently, though, this only applies if it comes from our strategic petroleum reserves meant to sustain us during national emergencies, disruptions, etc, not because Obama's poll numbers are flopping more than the Vancouver Canucks. I guess it does not apply to Alaskan oil, gulf coast oil, east coast oil, west coast oil, etc. etc. You see, Obama can decrease gas prices by making more of our strategic reserves available, but not by making all of our other oil available.

Makes perfect sense, right?

Meanwhile, Schumer just keeps looking like an ass for investigating something that Obama and the press are notably pooh poohing by ostensibly addressing the actual reason - oil prices - not gouging, not retailers, not hoarders.

Oh, and in case you were wondering if this guy writing for Yahoo was an ass, also, or not...yes, a gigantic liberal head up his ass and Obama's ass ass to be specific:

While the economy is slowing, there seems to be little hope of further aid or stimulus(1). In his press conference yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke indicated that the central bank was pretty much done with its efforts to boost demand(2). On Capitol Hill, talks are centering on anti-stimulative spending cuts(3) and tax increases. And so releasing oil from the SPR is one way President Obama can stimulate the economy without action from the Fed or Congress(4). In theory, greater supplies of oil bring down the price(5). And cheaper oil functions as a tax cut for businesses and consumers(6).

(1) Translation: the actions Obama and the Fed have taken to this point have been stimulative. Uh...really? No, no they haven't, you ass.

(2) Maybe because they've been a massive failure, you ass? Well, they did push inflation up to worrisome levels, so they've got that going for them, whoo hoo! Ass.

(3) Every normal, average American business owner is quaking about this massive spending and what it's going to do to our economy sooner rather than later, yet stopping it is supposed to be anti-stimulative? Ass.

(4) Want to bet whether that will happen, ass?

(5) On what planet is a jackass ass (yes, I said "jackass ass", deal with it) that doesn't understand the most basic element of supply and demand in any way qualified to write an economics column? "In theory"?? Moronic first graders with one finger up their nose know that they'll give away a cookie if they have a box of cookies but will cling with a death grip to a cookie if it's the only one they have. Ass.

(6) Then, ass, doesn't that mean that higher prices act as a tax hike? And hasn't Obama and his energy secretary talked longingly about gas prices as high as like $8/gallon?

Gee, I'm in a good mood...

File Under "D'uh"

Poll: Voters think reporters are biased liberals

...take a look at this new Rasmussen poll: Sixty-seven percent of likely U.S. voters believe that reporters try to bolster their preferred candidate when covering an election, while 46 percent believe that the average reporter is more liberal than they are, according to the national telephone survey.

Only 21 percent of respondents, on the other hand, have faith that journalists are fair and balanced in their coverage, and 18 percent find the fourth estate's political leanings to be more conservative than their own.

Among the other findings:

- Forty-eight percent of voters believe most reporters would "hide any damaging information they learned to help the candidate they wanted to win."

- Meanwhile, Republicans (59 percent) and unaffiliated voters (58 percent) "feel much more strongly than Democrats that most reporters ... would hold back news that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win."

And Jon Stewart throws up a little bit in his mouth again.

In case anyone thinks those numbers are funky, they should be at 100% believing those last couple of things. Why? Because the mainstream press has admitted doing this. Remember the party for the guy called a spokesman for palestinian terrorists, who just happened to be a buddy of the Obamas in Chicago, where Obama is said to have spoken? The press had a tape of this event and outright refused to release it before the 2008 election. Do you think it made Obama look good? Do you think they would have released it if Obama looked good in it? But then again they were too busy making up stories about McCain having affairs and panting after fever swamp delusions about Trig not being Palin's son to, you know, investigate Obama or report on things that they already had in their possession.

Rashid Khalidi is finally making news and Obama is having to talk about him now. Khalidi is also not just "some guy in the neighborhood". Obama has talked about having dinner at his house, having Khalidi and his wife babysit his kids, and is apparently on tape (tape being suppressed by the LA Times) praising Khalidi at a farewell dinner. The dinner is described as being an anti-Israel hatefest. Khalidi himself, while he may be a professor, also happens to be a unrepentant ex-spokesman for the Jew hating PLO. He reportedly still vents his rage at Jews and Israel...In 2000, Khalidi had a fundraiser for Obama at his house.

Blasting From The Past

Even back then the editors at the Times Union thought they knew better than our military what they needed. As usual, they were wrong:

CUT DEFENSE BUDGET PRUDENTLY (Times Union editorial, April 5, 1993)

A recognition of the dangers in the world, however, is not an excuse for continuing the funding of arms projects that we simply don't need. The McDonnell Douglas C-17 cargo jet is a case in point. The C-17, an experimental model, has had so many problems and its usefulness has been so roundly questioned that even traditional Pentagon defenders in the Congress have called for its termination. Defense Secretary Les Aspin, nonetheless, has kept funding for the C-17 in his proposed defense budget, apparently because killing it would be a big blow to California's economy. That, obviously, is not the way to decide on defense budget cuts.

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

The C-17 has broken 22 records for oversized payloads...The C-17 was awarded US aviation's most prestigious award, the Collier Trophy in 1994...A report to Congress detailing operations in Kosovo and Operation Allied Force noted that "One of the great success stories...was the performance of the Air Force's C-17A"...The C-17 flew half of the strategic airlift missions required in the operation. The aircraft allowed for deliveries via small airfields, greatly assisting the deployment; and rapid turnaround times allowed for efficient utilisation.

...The C-17 have been, and continue to be, used to deliver military goods and humanitarian aid during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as well as Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq. On 26 March 2003, 15 USAF C-17s participated in the biggest combat airdrop since the United States invasion of Panama in December 1989: the night-time airdrop of 1,000 paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade occurred over Bashur, Iraq. The airdrop of paratroopers were followed by C-17s ferrying M1 Abrams, M2 Bradelys, M113s and artillery.

USAF C-17s have also been used to assist US allies transport military equipment, including Canadian armored vehicles to Afghanistan in 2003 and the redeployment of Australian forces in Australia and the Solomon Islands during the Australian-led military deployment to East Timor in 2006. In late September and early November 2006, USAF C-17s flew 15 Canadian Leopard C2 tanks from Kyrgyzstan into Kandahar in support of the Afghanistan NATO mission.

Yup, quite a waste.

Waste? Here's Some

Obama and the left keep claiming we can get the budget under control by cutting waste. Hey! Here's some!

Ooooh! And an added bonus, Michelle Obama wants to cut waists! Second verse, same as the first! Hey! Here's some!

...the number of food-stamp recipients has soared to 44 million from 26 million in 2007, and costs have more than doubled to $77 billion from $33 billion.

The USDA's Food and Nutrition Service now has only 40 inspectors to oversee almost 200,000 merchants that accept food stamps nationwide...

...the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed that Wisconsin food-stamp recipients routinely sell their benefit cards on Facebook...

...a Seattle television station revealed that some food-stamp recipients were selling their cards on Craigslist or brazenly cashing them out on street corners (for 50 cents on the dollar)...

...two veteran employees for New York City's Human Resources Administration were busted for concocting 1,500 fake food-stamp cases that netted them $8 million. Nine Milwaukee, Wis., staffers plundered almost $300,000 from the program...a Louisiana state bureaucrat pleaded guilty last year for her role in a scam that snared more than $50,000 in fraudulent food-stamp benefits. (Note that these are the ones that were caught)

The Obama administration is responding by cracking down on state governments' antifraud measures...

Perhaps the biggest fraud of all is the notion...that the food-stamp program is a nutrition program...What is really does is boost caloric intake, which is why numerous studies (including a 2009 Ohio State University report) link food stamps to the worsening obesity epidemic among low-income Americans.

The USDA has vetoed all proposals from local or state governments to prevent food stamps from being used for junk food. With the feds' approval, food stamps are increasingly being redeemed at fast-food restaurants...

There you go, Obamas! Two birds, one stone! Cut food stamp spending and stop the use of this "nutrition program" for Twinkies and Double Whoppers with Cheese!

And, just because:

Confusion Abounds

I'm confused. Why are they using our strategic oil reserves for non-strategic reasons when we just finished conquering Iraq for their OIL??!!

What A Surprise

Jobless claims rise more than expected

New claims for unemployment benefits rose more than expected last week, a government report showed on Thursday, suggesting little improvement in the labor market this month after employment stumbled in May.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits climbed 9,000 to a seasonally adjusted 429,000, the Labor Department said. The prior week's figure was revised up to 420,000.

I don't even know what to make of this anymore. I swear, I don't. Hell, it's starting to resemble this for the right: The 5 Stages Of Grief

1-Denial- Yeah, at first we just wanted to deny that so many 'economists' could be so completely baffled by obvious economic indicators so many times for so long when ordinary people on the street can see it plainly

2-Anger- Then we got ticked that they just kept repeating this carp, shamelessly continuing to try to float Obama's boat by pretending this were supposed to be getting better or were, in fact, getting better, even as the ship continued sinking into the ocean

3-Bargaining- For a while all we wanted was some honesty, hell, they're still going to shill for Obama, but couldn't they just mix it up a bit, stop pretending that obvious financial matter weren't, in fact, obvious? Hell, I was excited just to see their surprise rephrased...once!

4-Depression- I think we're here now. Still noting the idiocy that's been going on for like a year now and yet knowing that we have more than a year left of it as they continue their re-election campaign for The Won, knowing that it just - will - not - stop

5-Acceptance- Maybe eventually we'll end up here and stop noting this, stop pretending that the liberal media will ever budge...not here yet, as you can plainly tell

Again...Something Is Missing

Hmmm...Marine Reservist (and you all recall how Obama's Homeland Security Chief had a report drawn up talking about how our military was all a bunch of terrorists, right?).

Officials: Man linked to DC-area shootings in 2010

A Marine reservist who was detained during a security scare near the Pentagon last week has been linked to the shootings last year at the Marine Corps museum in Quantico and several D.C.-area military recruitment stations, officials said Wednesday.

Hmmm...

"Man"

"A Marine reservist"

Hmmmm.

It almost makes you think there's got to be more to this story, doesn't it?

Like, oh, I dunno...maybe the words that are nowhere to be found like "muslim" or "sudden jihadi syndrome" or "islam"?

Heaven forfend we mention that the guy was (yet another) muslim extremist that had infiltrated our military, our military that is more burdened with wedding gays and avoiding being called terrorists and being sent illegally to fight in Libya apparently to pay attention to terrorists infiltrating their ranks.

Melaku also had a notebook with the words "al-Qaida" and "Taliban Rules" written inside, one of the officials has said. The context of the words was not immediately clear, but another law enforcement official has said Melaku is not believed to have any links to al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization.

Yeah, gee, I dunno how we'll ever figure out what those obscure scribblings mean!

The Democrat Plan For Medicare Is Bankruptcy

Drill it into your memory, whip it out whenever needed - The Democrat plan for Medicare IS bankruptcy. The doctors testifying are Medicare trustees:

Rep. Roskam: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your report shows that Medicare will now be bankrupt in 2024. Americans would then be forced to either endure a massive tax hike or "an immediate 17-percent reduction in expenditures." In other words an immediate 17-percent Medicare cut. Can you explain what you mean by immediate?

Dr. Blahous: Well the way that the trust funds work, both on the Social Security side and on the Medicare HI side, is that the amount of expenditures the program can put out there is limited by what's in the trust funds. Now on the SMI side that's not really an issue because we just give the trust fund each year whatever is required to keep pace with costs. But once that trust fund runs out, the program lacks the authority to make benefit payments. Now there have been a lot of legal analyses that have been done of what happens when the trust fund runs out and they don't all agree, but a fairly common one is that payments would simply have to be suspended or delayed until the requisite financing came into the trust fund which would have the effect of reducing payments simply by virtue of delay.

Roskam: And that immediate is the common understanding of immediate, in other words, this present moment in time. In other words, when insolvency happens, then you immediately are prohibited based on the law and based on your understanding as a trustee from paying anything further out. And your estimation is that it would be a 17-percent benefit cut. Is that right?

Dr. Blahous: Well its 17 percent on average over 75 years, now it varies according to year. I think in 2024 specifically it's about 10 percent and that increases, then it becomes 25 percent by the 2040s.

Dr. Reischauer: What I think my colleague was describing is when the trust fund became insolvent, money would still be flowing in from tax receipts and Medicare would delay paying bills, and so a hospital would send this bill in and rather than being paid in 24 days, it might have to wait five months. The CMS and intermediaries and other payers would be writing out the checks and transferring the resources to the hospital, hospice, whatever, on a much delayed basis...

Roskam: I understand. So when the gentleman from Wisconsin said that there's a proposal that's out there by the Majority on this Committee that ends Medicare. In fact, Medicare as we know it will end in 2024, absent some change in policy or some change in moving forward. That's right isn't it?

Dr. Blahous: Yes.

More MSM Busting For Palin. Just Because I Feel Like It.

You remember this, right? The whole Sarah Palin/Paul Revere dust up? Sure you do. Someone points at this interview that ran on NPR that, well, manages to both continue the attack on Palin by making stuff up and yet utterly vindicates her. As they say, when even NPR isn't on your side, it's time for that meme to die, lefties:

MELISSA BLOCK, host:

Sarah Palin is defending her knowledge of American history. Last week, after Palin visited Old North Church and Paul Revere's house in Boston, a reporter asked her what she had seen, and what she'd take away from her visit.

Ms. SARAH PALIN (Former Governor, Alaska): We saw where Paul Revere hung out as a teenager, which was something new to learn. And you know, he who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure, as he is riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells, that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

BLOCK: Well, after that generated howls of derision for historical inaccuracy, Palin amplified on "Fox News Sunday." Here's part of what she said.

(Soundbite of TV show, "Fox News Sunday")

Ms. PALIN: Part of Paul Revere's ride - and it wasn't just one ride; he was a courier, he was a messenger - part of his ride was to warn the British that we're already there, that hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have. He did warn the British.

BLOCK: We are going to fact-check Palin's Paul Revere history now with Robert Allison. He's chair of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston...

Professor ROBERT ALLISON (Chairman, History Department, Suffolk University): Thanks, Melissa.

BLOCK: And let's review Paul Revere's midnight ride, April 18, 1775. He's going to Lexington, Massachusetts. And according to Sarah Palin, he's riding his horse through town, sending warning shots and ringing those bells. True?

Prof. ALLISON: Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others. What he's doing is going from house to house, knocking on doors of members of the Committees of Safety, saying the regulars are out. That is, he knew that General Gage was sending troops out to Lexington and Concord, really Concord, to seize the weapons being stockpiled there...

Remember, Gage was planning - this is a secret operation; that's why he's moving at night. He gets over to Cambridge, the troops start marching from Cambridge, and church bells are ringing throughout the countryside.

It's not entirely clear, because this wasn't exactly a prepared 'sound bite' that she was giving, that he himself was ringing bells or shooting off shots (other sources indicate that rifle shots, which carry a long way, were also used as signals across the countryside at the time). The host here keeps trying to focus on this one little item and twist it the way she wants, but the guest isn't biting. It's not even a logical argument to make, I mean, do they really think that a rushed Palin really meant that by riding his horse he was trying to shoot and ring bells, which would be taking her quote 100% as said ("he is riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells")? Or that the purpose was to give warning and get others to further spread the word via those actions? Get real. Also, note that the host completely ignores the fact that Palin mentions, in the soundbite she just played, multiple events, yet her first question to her guest twists her words and acts as if she was speaking of one, isolated event.

BLOCK: So Paul Revere was ringing those bells? He was a silversmith, right?

Prof. ALLISON: Well, he was - he also was a bell ringer. That is, he rang the bells at Old North Church as a boy. But he, personally, is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells. He's telling other people - and this is their system before Facebook, before Twitter, before NPR - this was the way you get a message out, is by having people ring church bells, and everyone knows there is an emergency.

And by this time, of course, the various town committees of safety, militia knew what the signals were, so they knew something was afoot. So this is no longer a secret operation for the British.

Revere isn't trying to alert the British, but he is trying to warn them. And in April of 1775, no one was talking about independence. We're still part of the British Empire. We're trying to save it. So this is a warning to the British Empire what will happen if you provoke Americans.

Let me just get out my laser knife here and see just how fine I can slice her words, he is basically saying. But, before I do this, note what Palin actually said. She said "warn". Not "alert". He's agreeing with her as he acts as if he's lightly correcting her.

warn: 1 a : to give notice to beforehand especially of danger or evil
b : to give admonishing advice to : counsel
c : to call to one's attention : inform

alert: 1 a: to call to a state of readiness : warn
2: to make aware of

They're called 'synonyms', NPR.

BLOCK:Sarah Palin also was saying there that Paul Revere's message to the British in his warning was: You're not going to take American arms - you know, basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn't exist then.

Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.

She may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case? Really? Hmmm. Let's look at what she actually said again. Nope, she never says anything about it being a Second Amendment case. You did. Not her. You. What she said, was 100 percent correct, that they were going to seize arms, which you just agreed was exactly what they were doing. 100 percent correct. Not 99%. Not 45%. Not "pushing it too far". 100 percent historically accurate factual truth. Unlike the words the host and her guest inserted into Palin's mouth.

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did.

Game. Set. Match - Palin.

Media Gives Itself Award For Made Up Story

It's like some sort of dream world...and all the while they snicker and mock FoxNews...(insert headshake here):

For their work on the Toyota unintended-acceleration story, Ross, ABC News' chief investigative correspondent, and the ABC News investigative team have been given the Edward R. Murrow Award for "video continuing coverage." The prize is handed out by the Radio Television Digital News Association, which must be made up of the only people on Earth who didn't know that the story fell apart...

Alas, a 10-month probe by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and NASA was unable to find any problems with the carmaker's electronic throttle control systems. In fact, the investigation concluded that "the vast majority" of runaway Toyotas were likely caused by drivers pushing their accelerators thinking that it was the brake pedal.

One would think that any reputable media association would refuse to hand out an award for coverage of a story that was in fact devoid of any substance. But one would be wrong...

Ross by himself did not drive down Toyota's market value and sales. But he's the correspondent who staged the famous "death ride" in a Toyota set up to accelerate without driver input. And it was Ross' report that featured a doctored shot of a tachometer suddenly racing to 6,000 rpm.

The Tick Vs. Pineapple Pokopo

Guess I messed up the quote originally, fixed.

Your Random Saturday

Dennis Prager:

The point -- the whole point -- is the effect of what he did on the United States House of Representatives and on the country as a whole, especially young people...

That is the issue here. When a member of Congress sends pictures of his penis to women around the country, he has demeaned Congress...

And at least as destructive as his impact on the House of Representatives is his impact on young America. The message to young Americans is the same: A 46-year-old member of Congress can send photos such as this congressman did to women around the country and keep his seat...

If you ever need to show someone how low liberalism has sunk in our lifetime, just show him this New York Times editorial. A congressman sends photos of his genitalia to women he doesn't know, and The New York Times doesn't think he should resign unless the BlackBerry he used was issued by the government.

Um, yeah, that's pretty much the Obama 'presidency':

Meanwhile, back at the real White House, Obama dithers and points fingers. Oh, yes, he perfunctorily apologizes from time to time for not making jobs his first priority, but then he continues not to make them his first priority, until it's time for the next speech to blame Bush again. And so it goes.

The Obama Job Lies Pile Up

The number one recommendation that the White House economic team and his jobs council – a council made up of the two top executives at GE and American Express- can come up with to jump start our economy is spending $2 billion on remedial training for our high school graduates...

For the last week President Obama and his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness- a council that’s supposed to be jump starting hiring- have been going around the country claiming that there are 2 million manufacturing jobs available right now that are going unfilled because the U.S. doesn’t have the skilled workforce to fill those jobs...

The problem of course is that the 2 million advanced manufacturing job openings that Obama, Immelt and Chenault are talking about really don’t exist...

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Jacey Wilkins told me this week that the two million jobs they are citing are jobs that will become available in the next ten years due to retirements, rather than because of a drastic skills shortage...

In fact, NAM says they do face a skills shortage, but that’s because we are graduating kids from high school without the basic skills to compete in manufacturing...

Turns out now that we are going to have to spend $2 billion (and counting) to get our kids up to snuff just to be able to take over their parents’ jobs in manufacturing because the protestors didn’t educate those kids.

Happy Fathers Day!

Hey, need a little discussion point for the Fathers Day BBQs this weekend? Here ya go:

Tax cuts have nothing to do with deficits!

That ought to get the tongues wagging! But, really, it's a simple concept when effortlessly explained.

Imagine you quit your job. You now have no income. But you buy nothing. What happens to your bank account? Does it got down just because you have no income? No. Even though you are bringing in zero, you are not running a deficit. Not until you buy something do you run a deficit.

Imagine the government eliminated taxes. They now have zero income. Do they run a deficit? Nope. Not until they write a check do they go negative and run a deficit.

Really, though, can you quit your job and then spend no money? Of course not. You need to pay for utilities, for food, etc. So you need some source of funding, either savings or income.

Can the government spend no money? Of course not. There are things they have to do - courts, payrolls for mandated services, the military, a few other things. So they need some source of funding. Savings? Well, they're already like $14 trillion in debt, so I'm guessing when Uncle Sam opens up his change purse a moth flies out, just like in the old cartoons. So they need some income.

But what if you only work part time, just enough to pay for what you spend? Do you run a deficit? Nope.

So what if the government only spent what they took in? Would they run a deficit? Nope.

What if your hours got cut and you earned a little less? Would you run a deficit? Well, if you don't change your spending, yes. But what if you switch to store brand yogurt instead of the fancy stuff? In other words, what if you match your spending to your income? Do you run a deficit? Nope.

So what about if you change the tax rates so that you bring in less tax revenues (let's even pretend that when you lower tax rates you decrease revenues for the sake of argument, even though history proves this is not the case)? Well, if you spend the same, you run a deficit.

What if you have your hours cut, but you switch to generics and also cancel the cable? Do you run a deficit? No, you probably now have a surplus. What if your hours stay the same, but you cut the cable off? Surplus. What if you work a little extra time, but cut the cable? Surplus!

What if the government cuts spending but doesn't touch taxes (for the sake of argument, let's try not to laugh and pretend they've previously matched expenditures to revenues)? Surplus! What if they take in a little less and cut some spending? Balanced budget or surplus! What if revenues go up but they maintain spending levels or cut spending? Surplus!

It should be obvious before everyone has finished their second hot dog (actually, maybe it's best to stick with brats or burgers this weekend instead of 'wieners') that there is one absolutely controlling factor in whether you run a deficit or not - and it's not taxes. It's spending.

Even if taxes fell to zero (or just to the level needed to meet basic government services), the government would not run a deficit. It is only when they increase spending beyond what they take in taxes that they run a deficit.

Anyone that says, yes, but the government needs to provide more services (spend more), so they need to raise taxes, if they don't raise taxes, then they run a deficit, if they raise taxes they won't run a deficit, so taxes are the key! needs to be corrected.

No. Not at all. They cannot control tax revenue to that extent. They can't just 'work a few more hours'. They can, however, decide to get rid of cable. This is still America...for now. They cannot tell you to work more, be more productive, earn more, pay more taxes. They can try. But that's all. But they can switch to store brand baked beans. That they can control. Spending.

It's all about the spending.

Many people at the BBQ, those bothering to be involved with such a discussion, likely recall the Reagan years. Reagan and a Democrat Congress cut taxes and revenues skyrocketed. However, the Democrats demanded massive spending hikes to go along with the tax strategy. The deficit grew, despite tax revenues also growing. What was the key? Revenues going up fast or spending going up faster? In the end, what mattered most in determining whether there was a deficit or a surplus? Rising revenue or rising-faster spending? The answer is obvious. If they had maintained spending levels, but let revenue skyrocket, they would have run a surplus. They did not.

Some might only remember Clinton. Same story. Clinton and a Democrat Congress jacked up taxes. Revenues increased despite this thanks to Bush's peace dividend and the Pentium chip. But did they run a surplus? No, even with higher revenue they ran a deficit. Liberals today like to fondly recall the 'far as the eye can see' "surpluses" of Clinton. In reality there was one year of surplus (and one other that looked that way if you ignore the effect of inflation) if I recall correctly. And that came only after a Republican Congress got Clinton to agree to cut taxes and rein in spending. Notice the coincidence? Only when spending was controlled did a surplus emerge. And, even then, those "surpluses" dried up when a recession hit, the one that Bush inherited from Clinton.

Happy Fathers Day, dads - what fun talk around the picnic table!

Deniers! They're All Around Us! Round Them Up!

Re-education camps and tattoos all around!

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," said Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO's Solar Synoptic Network, as the findings of the three studies were presented at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

"But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."...

"This is important because the solar cycle causes space weather which affects modern technology and may contribute to climate change," he told reporters.

Pfffft! Fool! What kind of idiot would claim that something as meaningless as the sun could affect our entire climate? Moron. I can't believe the press is even wasted our time printing stories with quotes from some idiot denialist that thinks that the sun instead of people can affect the climate of the EARTH!

Real Death Panels

The left can lie and mock all they want, but when anyone, including Sarah Palin, talks about death panels, this is exactly what they mean:

Death Panels: Great Britain Rationing Cancer Treatments For The Elderly

Remember, Obama's chief advisor on insurance reform is absolutely ga-ga for Britain's "health care" program and it is his model for what he wants to implement here.

Am I Wrong?

Perhaps I'm missing something, under- or over-thinking this...but it feels right to me.

The left in America today get upset when asked to pay for what they get. They get upset when someone who has money, but is not receiving the good or service, does not pay for what they get instead of them.

As examples I offer up the faculty and students at SUNY. They are, the press informs us, quite "angry" about the potential for tuition hikes. The faculty is "angry" about reduced classes (less work for them) and, I suppose cuts to their jobs or benefits or whatever. They don't think that students should pay enough to cover the costs of that faculty. Someone else, the "rich" has money, why shouldn't they cover more of the cost of students attending SUNY so the faculty can keep their jobs just the way they are.

I offer the airline passengers outraged at the fees they have to pay for the privilege of getting onto a mechanical device, operated and maintained by huge staffs, powered by increasingly expensive fuel, and a short time later safely arriving at their destination. Because of these fees the airlines have been able to turn a small profit instead of ferrying these people about for less than what it costs them. Never mind that those profits are poured back into new planes, etc. and are returned to investors, the same investors that made it possible for the airline to buy planes and get into airports and ferry these people about in the first place.

I offer every liberal in America that shows up anywhere at any time holding a "tax the rich" sign. The rich are taxed. They are taxed more than the person holding that sign. They likely employ the person holding that sign, if they have a job, and if their taxes were raised might have to let that person go. That person would then need more handouts that, presumably, they want to see come from "the rich".

I offer every school budget meeting where some people stand up and decry how much they're taxed and the district should just go tax the businesses more to fund education for their kids. Never mind that this will make that business leave and thus pay nothing.

I offer everyone that thinks that our income tax system is regressive, despite the facts, and especially despite the fact that almost half of American earners pay no federal income tax. And that's how they like it. There are services that the government must provide and they certainly don't want to see that half's wealth (no matter how small) being "spread around" so that we don't have wild swings in tax revenue every time something affects "the rich" disproportionately.

Cutting anything is just out. Cut school spending? Cut airline trips? Cut subsidized tuition? Not just outrageous, unthinkable, wrong, unworkable...but evil and malicious.

The right...well, the right believes the exact opposite of all of that.

Can't afford to pay tuition for what it actually costs to educate you? Get a job, get a loan, take fewer classes, cut the cost of education, make employment benefits there less sweet.

Can't afford baggage fees? Don't take so much luggage, take a bus, take the train (oops, that's subsidized, too!), don't take that trip, drive.

Want some new government spending program it can't afford? Don't do it, tell us what to cut instead.

School costs soaring out of control? Rein in costs.

I dunno, that's what I think.

Let me reference every single economic self-help book, article, website, and guru that has ever existed:

If your spending is out of control, the first thing you need to do is cut up your credit cards and stop spending. When you have dug yourself a hole, the first thing is to put down the shovel.

Unless you're a democrat or leftist, then they think the first thing we need to do is call the credit card company to raise our credit limit ('debt limit') so that we can keep spending...because we're going to get this under control...tomorrow...or soon...definitely soon...as long as we can keep spending more now.

Gazette Asks: Economy On The Upswing?

Gee...was today the right day for the Gazette to run a sunny AP story titled "Economy on the upswing?" on the front page? Well, considering there was just a key GOP debate where all 7 candidates rightly attacked Obama all night long on his devastatingly incompetent and failed handling of the economy...wait, I just answered my own question.

After all, it's nothing new.

Remember the heady days of 2010? Recovery summer! Brought to you by Joe Biden and Barry Obama! The summer that the stimulus really started to kick in!

OK, maybe not so much.

Obama: Positive 'Trend Is Clear' for Economy on the Upswing

Yay! Whoops, that was like January.

10 Signs the Economy Is on the Upswing

Yay! Whoops...February.

Must be some current news around...

Here we go, today's news to go along with the Gazette's hopeful front page story:

Turning Japanese: America Will Suffer a ‘Lost Decade’ If We Don’t Change Course, Alpert Says

Shiller: Housing Could Fall Another 25% But Is Harder to Predict Than the Weather

More small businesses plan to reduce jobs: report

Stocks slump as Greek crisis turns violent

Briefing.com:

Stocks continue to trade at their lows for the day. Declining issues outnumber advancers by more than 5-to-1 on the NYSE...

Turmoil in Greece and disappointing data are driving some aggressive selling today. The effort has completely erased the prior session's gain...

A greater-than-expected increase in consumer inflation measures has further bolstered buying interest in the dollar. Both overall CPI and core CPI increased more than expected during May.

Other data has also disappointed. Generally, the latest Empire Manufacturing Survey made an unexpected drop into negative territory. Monthly industrial production increased by less than what had been anticipated.

Few stocks have been able to escape this session's sell-off. In fact, the lack of strength anywhere in the market is made evident by the fact that all 10 major sectors are down with losses in excess of 1%...

So far, this morning's data has featured an ugly Empire Manufacturing Survey reading of -7.8 for June. The consensus among economists surveyed by Briefing.com had called for a reading of 10.0 after a reading of 11.9 was posted for the prior month. Consumer price inflation data were also just reported. Overall CPI for May increased by 0.2%, which is a bit greater than the 0.1% increase that had been broadly anticipated. Core CPI increased by 0.3%, which contrasts with the Briefing.com consensus call for a 0.1% increase.

If only there was a term for an economy with stagnant growth and yet inflation with high unemployment...hmmmm...oh yeah! There is!

GOP Debates Economic Fixes, Obama Jokes About Record Of Failure

IBD makes clear how clueless Obama remains on what to do about the economy or how it works as the GOP contenders debate which pipes need to be opened to clean out the Augean stables they'll be left with:

The Republican National Committee could not have scripted a more damning sound bite. President Obama on Monday attended his administration's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness at an enviro-friendly lighting firm in North Carolina. Considering the dismal state of the economy, it should have been a subdued event.

But when it was explained to the president that the federal permit process for construction and infrastructure projects can cause delays ranging from "months to years," and "in many cases even cause projects to be abandoned," a gaffe ensued.

It was remarked to the president, "I'm sure that when you implemented the Recovery Act, your staff briefed you on many of these challenges." A smiling Obama responded, "shovel-ready was not as . .. uh ... shovel-ready as we expected."

Even the staging couldn't have been more hurtful. Big signs reading "Jobs Council" loomed above him and adorned the desk at which he sat. After the president's quip, members of his "Jobs Council," led by his friend, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, laughed heartily...

"The other thing that happened," the president claimed in an NBC "Today Show" interview Tuesday, "is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.

"You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM. You don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

ATMs and automatic check-ins were invented since the stimulus? They weren't around when the country was enjoying 4.5% unemployment under George W. Bush? It's a socialist fairy tale to blame automation for killing jobs; it's always brought new jobs because it lets businesses expand faster...

No wonder former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told CNN on Monday that the 2012 election shouldn't be about "affixing blame" for the economy.

Just like Obama didn't campaign against Bush in 2008. Ayup.

Shameless (And Unearned) Back Patting

File under: Most ridiculous example of tooting one's own horn

This is laughable, the liberal "Daily Beast" claiming journalism credit:

The ATF's Operation Fast and Furious sparked outrage by allowing hundreds of weapons from U.S. gun shops to be trafficked to Mexican drug gangs—and left one border agent dead. With House hearings today, John Solomon exclusively traces the origin of the sting to the Justice Department, which originally denied involvement...

The answer leads to previously undisclosed instructions given by higher-ups inside the Obama Justice Department, which originally denied any role in the burgeoning controversy, The Daily Beast has learned...

But on Wednesday, The Daily Beast has learned, congressional investigators will disclose that just weeks before ATF supervisors approved the Fast and Furious operation and its controversial tactics, senior Justice Department officials sent a memo to prosecutors and agents on the front lines of the border wars urging that they go beyond their traditional tactics of interdicting guns being purchased by straw buyers and try to make cases against the drug gangs themselves...

"The department's leadership allowed the ATF to implement this flawed strategy, fully aware of what was taking place on the ground," their report concludes, according to an early copy obtained by The Daily Beast...

You've got to be freakin' kidding me. Where did this leftist blog get all their top-secret information? How did they "exclusively" learn all this?

Gee, maybe from information disseminated by Darrell Issa's office and widely covered from sea to shining blog sea???

Redstate

Michelle Malkin

Hot Air

Ace of Spades

etc etc

Way to go, Beast, way. to. go.

In other news, Albany Media Bias has exclusively learned that one Andrew Cuomo is the governor of New York. Albany Media Bias has learned that he got more votes than his opponents in the last election and, as a result, was certified as the winner of the gubernatorial election. Breaking...

Postponing The Inevitable Or Unleashing The Power Of "?"

At this point in history, with the cause and effect readily apparent, I am continually shocked to hear anyone express support for government spending stimulus as the solution for economic recovery, let alone supposedly intelligent people.

Seriously, what is wrong in their brain that makes them believe this? Forget about looking back at the Great Depression and FDR's failed stimulus efforts to fix it and pronouncing it a failure or success, look at what the people living it had to say. It failed. Unemployment did not come down and the economy did not recover. If it stopped the slide, it did so only at great cost and without reversing the slide or even with any promise of so doing.

Between then and 2008 there were other hard economic times. Kennedy cut taxes and the economy boomed. Reagan cut taxes and the economy boomed. Clinton cut taxes and the economy boomed. Bush cut taxes and the economy boomed. Obama...

Well.

Obama went the FDR route. Let's not even get into the root motivations of the Democrats here. Let's just give them the benefit of the doubt and say they did what they did to help the economy (no, I don't believe that, but let's pretend).

Unemployment continued going up, finally leveling out where we are now, the "new normal", 9% unemployment. GDP growth is anemic and too low to ignite the economy. Debt absolutely skyrocketed. But, they claim, jobs were "saved". Left unsaid is government jobs were "saved".

But not really. At great (GREAT) expense, some government jobs were temporarily funded. Essentially for 2 years. Basically the federal government borrowed and printed money to pay government workers for 2 years. Now the spending spree is over and we are seeing the state readying to eliminate ~10,000 jobs. School districts are eliminating positions.

Can we concede that perhaps all this spending did temporarily "save" some government jobs? I think we can.

The problem is where we go from here. The stimulus did nothing to reverse the slide. Unemployment did not come down, it just stopped going up. GDP did not start growing normally, it just stopped being negative. Some would call this success. I would not. Obama likes to pretend he pulled the economic engine out of a ditch. He didn't. At best the government grabbed a bumper of a teetering engine and stands holding it at the brink to this day. They have pulled it back not a jot. As their "grip" (spending) weakens, the engine looks to be heading right back over the edge.

What is their next step if they find this such a success? For the government to keep borrowing and printing money to keep "saving" those government jobs? How long could that last? China's already writing us off. Banks are already getting ready to write us off. Inflation is here and looking like it could be bad depending on what we do next. But, hey, they saved some jobs for a little while. That's success.

That's success? All we've done is move down the road 2 years. We're right back where we were 2 years ago. Now the jobs are being cut that would otherwise have been cut 2 years ago. Now we have to figure out how to fix the problem, not just cover it up with masking tape. Two years on, a more dependent populace, and no better off than we were 2 years ago. Except, yes, the slide was stopped for 2 years. Whoopee.

Now the cutting must come. Cutting spending and cutting taxes. Nearly everyone sees this, except for the blindly partisan and outright socialists. They want to see the borrowing continue (except no one wants to lend and that means really the printing has to be ramped up, because that works out well) to keep people in their jobs and creating "demand". That will stimulate the economy, creating "demand". Really? Didn't FDR do that for a decade without success? Didn't Japan do that for a decade without success? Haven't we tried that for 2 years without success? Why on earth would anyone still think that repeating failures will suddenly start to work?

You know what's a little 'funny'? The economy under Clinton was saved by two things. The first was a Republican Congress that demanded that spending not outstrip revenue, this led to a couple of years of slightly positive balances. The second was a business innovation - the Pentium microchip. The 90s boom that resulted from the growth of the computing world and the internet led to high revenues and strong growth. The first is why deficits got under control, but the second is what let to the economic growth. I think Obama and his ilk are sitting around waiting for something like that to happen (never mind that the economy of a huge chunk of the 00s boomed without something like that under Republicans simply due to economic policies), never even noticing that it has. My word, little devices that do more than people were doing with their desktop computers in the 90s. Look what Weiner's doing with his? Heck, they even make phone calls (they still do that, don't they?). What if we could take the power of those desktop computers and put it into a little handheld device, no larger than a hardcover novel, with a touch screen? These would lead to an economic boom, this innovations, would they not? It has not. There must be a reason, don't you think?

Do they really think the government can continue to just go into debt more and more and more with the effect that the slide remains halted or slowed, but never reversed? When does it get better? Ask Japan. How about 'never'.

How many layers of tinfoil and blindfolds must one wear to look at what we've tried and the right-in-front-of-our-eyes results of failure and not look to the side? To the side what do we see? 9% unemployment and 20% underemployment. Massive stockpiles of cash (trillions) in our businesses. Hmmm...what can we do about that? Obama and his type look at that and say, hey, we need to take that money and give it to the people that aren't working so they don't starve. OK. Do that. And when the money runs out? Then they starve? Then you have 1 in 5 not working properly, probably more after seizing all kinds of private assets, and businesses without that money.

Again, you prevented the slide for a bit, but didn't reverse it. But you "created demand" some argue, it would "turn things around". But it doesn't. It hasn't. It won't. How does taking a bunch of money from businesses make them feel better about the government doling a bit of it back to them (if they're lucky, since the government inevitably picks the winners and losers and will decide if you get some back or get, per Jimmy James, "the shaft") after siphoning off the better part of it. OK, let's go there. Obama takes the money and "creates demand" by directing it to some businesses, say solar panel manufacturers. OK, now you've put a bunch of other businesses out of business, removed capital from the market, done little-to-nothing about unemployment, and now you have a smaller group of businesses holding money. Before you had high unemployment and businesses not spending money. Now you have high unemployment and a smaller set of businesses not spending money. That's progress? What's the end game?

Never do they open their eyes and view the obvious. This isn't a very difficult problem, is it? Lots of people that want to work and will likely do it for a very reasonable wage (especially if you remove overly generous payments for not working). Businesses that have money, want to make more money (by expanding), and can expand by hiring some of the many people that would be glad to work there.

One group needs workers and has the money to pay them. The other group wants to work. A marriage made in heaven, right?

So people like Obama scratch their heads and can't figure out why that's just not, you know, happening.

Over regulation. Attacks on businesses. Threats of higher taxes. The fear that the government could just show up one day, take your company, and give it to your workers. Taxes higher than doing business elsewhere.

Bluntly - government. That's why it's not, you know, happening. But there is essentially no one in the White House that can grasp any of this. All they see is "government jobs saved = success = do more of same = ? = economy recovers". Except for that "?" bit it looks great. And for them, not knowing anything about how business works, they just figure that's the part where businessmen and women "do something" and the economy recovers. They did their bit, so "business" should do their bit and fill in that "?". And they can't figure out why it's not working.

It's because they don't understand, because they have never run anything or even worked anywhere that it mattered, that "? = profit". They've never had to make a profit. They've never been part of earning a profit. They've never seen how to make a profit, why anyone would want to make a profit, what people do with a profit, or anything else that has anything to do with profit. See, for them "?" doesn't equal profit. For them "profit = evil". For them "government success + profit = economy fails". In their world profit isn't used to hire new workers, buy new machines, or innovate. For them profit equals fat white guys lighting cigars with $100 bills. It might as well be another planet, the business world and the profit world, from what they know. All they know about profit they heard at a socialist rally and that's all that they want to know.

Profit, for them, is simply excess money that the government should have, it's something that sits around under a mattress instead of feeding a poor black single mother and her crack-addicted baby, so anyone that wants to keep any of their profit is directly preventing the government from giving that money to the (inevitably) minority single mother (liberals assume all aid programs only help minorities because only minorities need help and all minorities need help). Profit = evil. If only Obama had that money, he could give someone another week of unemployment. By wanting to keep it (for whatever reason, to put in a swimming pool or to buy another delivery van), you are doing evil. Profit = evil. And, anyway, no one ever needs that much profit (unless they're liberals who aren't scrutinized, because they might need it someday for "treatment" if they send people pictures of their Weiner or call someone a bad name so they can keep their job), it's just "sitting" in a bank, one of those banks that just sit there and stare at the money, they don't lend it to other people to put in a swimming pool or buy a delivery van or hire another worker or anything.

People can't be trusted with "too much" money, the government should be "helping" people with it. That is what profit is. If you are allowed to keep more of it, someone else suffers. If you are allowed to keep what you earn, then someone else has to give more (so the government can give it to someone else). Simply not spending money you don't have? Unthinkable. A non-starter. Don't even go there.

? = profit. Take off the tinfoil. Take off the blinders. Take off the blindfolds.

Businesses have money. People want to work.

You can try to tell them to get together and grow the economy. How's that working out for you?

Or you can get out of their way, let ? = profit and let businesses pursue ?, let workers pursue ?, and see what happens.

It's worked before.

Dems Give GOP A Weiner

Using the cold calculus of politics, I can't help but think how beneficial it would be for Weiner to remain in the House for another year. The ads for the next campaign cycle write themselves...

For GOP incumbents

When married Republican Representative Chris Lee sent another woman a shirtless photo of himself, (insert incumbent's name) and the Republican leadership demanded that he resign and he did, the same day. When Democrat Representative Anthony Weiner sent women nude photos of himself and chatted with teenaged girls then lied about it to the nation, the Democratic leadership simply asked for an ethics investigation instead of demanding that he resign. Anthony Weiner's still in the House of Representatives, do you want to send (insert challenger's name) to the House to join him and the Democratic leadership that tolerates that kind of behavior? Vote (incumbent) this November.

For Democrat incumbents

When married Republican Representative Chris Lee sent another woman a shirtless photo of himself, the Republican leadership demanded that he resign and he did, the same day. When Democrat Representative Anthony Weiner sent women nude photos of himself and chatted with teenaged girls then lied about it to the nation, the Democratic leadership simply asked for an ethics investigation instead of demanding that he resign. Anthony Weiner's still in the House of Representatives, do you want to send (insert incumbent's name) back to the House to join him and the Democratic leadership that tolerates that kind of behavior? Vote (insert challenger's name) this November.

Your Random Saturday

Again, Mr. Bush said it well (yes, sometimes he did that), the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' with which the left saddles minorities ever since the 60s when they decided they needed to be their keepers:

I saw "they isn't" the same week the Democrats and others on the left virtually unanimously condemned all Republican attempts in state legislatures to pass legislation requiring voters to show a photo ID. The Democrats labeled it a means of "disenfranchising" blacks. Many Democrats compared it to Jim Crow laws...

Imagine if some Democratic politician had announced that demanding a photo ID at the voting booth was an attempt to keep Jewish Americans from voting. No one would understand what the person was talking about. But why not? Jews vote almost as lopsidedly Democrat as do blacks. So why weren't Jews included in liberal objections to voter ID laws?

We all know the answer. Jews are generally considered intelligent and therefore no one would assume that obtaining a photo ID was demanding too much of even poor Jews (yes, there are poor Jews). Therefore, one can only infer that the argument that demanding photo ID for voting will disenfranchise many blacks suggests that many blacks lack the capacity to obtain a photo ID...

It is difficult to overstate the negative impact making lesser demands on individuals, especially members of select groups, has on them. The message is as clear as day: We expect less of you. Why? Because we think less of you...

Conservative Americans, on the other hand, actually believe there is no difference between black and non-black abilities, and therefore see only harm in depicting a substantial percentage of the black population as essentially incapable of obtaining a photo ID.

Which group has more respect for black Americans? The answer is obvious. And one day, most black Americans will know the real answer to that question. That will be the beginning of the final stage of black liberation, as well as the end of the Democratic Party as we now know it.

WTF!

MorOns Weinered

Starting a while ago the chatter from the MorOn.org braindeth star was picking up as they launched their campaign to re-elect the guy that keeps continuing most Bush policies, except for the economic ones, resulting in the near certitude of a double-dip recession and liberal headaches all around.

Then came the Weinerman along with an nearly endless string of horrific economic news items.

MorOn.org basically went silent except to try to raise money to throw out Republicans in Wisconsin and get the unions re-elected...something like that.

They burst from their shell again with a triumphant roar of re-invention!

No. Strike that. They poked their head out of their hole and meekly asked if anyone had any ideas since they don't seem to have any.

Winning!

==

Oh wait, I see...they've been busy faking attacks on FoxNews in order to...attack FoxNews...with fakery...fakely. Wow.

Spit It Out

Breitbart Exposes A Lot Of Weenie Weiner Wieners

Recap: The Most Ridiculous Leftist Defenses of Anthony Weiner

Video Flashback: Liberal Media Defended Weiner by Slashing Andrew Breitbart

Elisabeth Hasselbeck Demands Weiner Resign; Other Ladies on The View Disagree

NYT Gives Breitbart His Due, Admits Media Hold Him at Arm's Length

Joan Walsh Says She Looks 'Stupid' For Defending Weiner - Then Continues to Defend Him

Gullible Wolf Blitzer: I 'Sort of Believed' Weiner's Lie

CBS Grills Breitbart on Sherrod Issue; Casts Doubt on His Credibility

DUers and Kossacks Punch Themselves Silly for Believing in Weiner

MSNBC Hosts Spin Wildly After Weiner Fesses Up

Barbara Walters Insists Weiner Should Stay and Be The Next Bill Clinton

NBC: 'Puritanical' Americans Must Become 'Anesthetized' to Sex Scandals

It's sort of funny...throughout you'll find a meme repeated over and over by the unthinking part of the left on display here - that Breitbart has a "history" of "lying". The single item they refer to over and over again as his "history" is the NAACP event that they continue to lie about, that it was "selectively edited" (he ran what he had, the NAACP originally refused his request for the complete video) to make "Sherrod" look bad...when in fact the clearly stated goal all along was to show the racist leaning not of Sherrod but the NAACP attendees. To the left this is an endless litany of lying and fabrications by Breitbart that stretch back to time immemorial.

(originally posted 6/8, added some more as they emerge)