Could They Be More Obvious

Remember when 'liberal media bias' was just sort of coming out of the closet? It would poke its head out from time to time.

Walter Cronkite then broke the doorknob so the closet wouldn't close anymore.

Stuff started tumbling out. From time to time a zipper would be lowered, exposing the liberal media bias pretty obviously.

People like Dan Rather yanked it down so hard that the teeth got all mangled like a wet kid on a snowy day rushing for a cup of hot chocolate (Dan would appreciate that I think) and the zipper won't even go up any more.

Still - sometimes the idiocy is just too, too blatant.

I'll provide the meat, you make the sandwich on your own:

1) A couple of yahoos decide to yank a debate moderators chain by saying 'yeah!' when he dumbly asks if a patient without health care should be allowed to die (despite the candidates response in the negative). The left and the media wet themselves in delirium as they claim that the entire audience, breathless with blood lust, screeched for the hypothetical head - of course no such outcry actually happened, but that's neither here nor there. Now we are treated to endless wailing and teeth gnashing over the 'audience outcry' that they claim they heard.

Ok...got that?

2) A video surfaces showing a black woman talking about how, as a government employee, she originally thought that she shouldn't help a white farmer for no other reason than because he was white. The audience at this event, does erupt in supportive cheering. This is witnessed on the tape. This was before she said she changed her mind. So the audience was, in fact, explicitly cheering for what they felt was an overt act of racism. The media and the left went after, of course, the conservative that posted the video. Endless rounds of interviews talked about the posting of the video, the sourcing of the video, the poster of the video...not about the audience reaction, not about any underlying black racism, etc etc.

See? I don't need to draw anyone a map - this stuff is easy once you know what to look for.

Beyond Reason

I am utterly and eternally baffled that a person could be put on the Supreme Court that does not think that the death penalty is constitutional...when it is explicitly authorized in the Constitution.

Unlike the many things that the Constitution forbids the government to do and the fact that it explicitly says that the few things it authorizes the federal government to do only a few things and tells the people they are responsible for the rest...capital punishment is one thing that is, in fact, explicitly authorized.

I just don't get it.

And the guys writing it were, as hard as some find it to believe, interested in fairness to their fellow man. The whole American Revolution thingy was pretty much about that. And they didn't think that the utter impossibility of proving everything to an absolute certainty, not a standard for any court doing anything, precluded capital punishment.

I mean, if he doesn't believe the death penalty should be allowed, then what's to stop him from voting to overturn free speech or freedom of the press?

Anything?

(Yes, I know, the 2nd Amendment, but let's not go there.)

Man, This Audience Is DEAD!

Seriously, Yahoo?

I mean, really? This is the first time you've heard of an Affirmative Action Bake Sale?

I hear sumpin' magical happens when ya rub two sticks together, Yahoo!

editoriaLIES

Times Union, September 23, 2011

Ah, but what better timing for yet another trumped-up drama than when President Barack Obama has a serious jobs bill on the table? Why risk letting the President take credit for tackling unemployment when Congress can create a distraction?

Lie. Um, no he doesn't, he gave a speech about raising taxes. In fact, there was such not a "jobs bill on the table", that a GOP Congressman finally got disgusted and submitted his own bill with the name that Obama said he was going to use to put a "jobs bill on the table". And I'm pretty sure Obama's been "taking credit for tackling unemployment" for about 3 years now. And we're still over 9%.

The Senate earlier passed a bill that provided $6.9 billion for disaster assistance, with no offsets. That's the way Congress has long handled disaster aid -- helping victims of storms, floods and other calamities first and leaving the bean counting for later.

Yeah, and somehow we've got a $14 trillion national debt. Hmmm...could there be a connection?

But now, conservatives seem to see every need, no matter how dire, as a chance to further their ideological goals. One week, the stability of the most powerful nation in the world comes down to Planned Parenthood or public broadcasting; another, it hinges on fuel-efficient cars.

Funny, I seem to recall the Democrats willing to shut down the government last time to preserve abortion funding, as if the need was just a chance to further their ideological goals. And this time? Apparently keeping the government running hinges on loans to "green" car companies making luxury boutique "green" cars that cost $95,000 and $109,000. And aren't we in this mess because Democrats STILL haven't done a budget for the past 3 years?

They came out not only looking disdainful of disaster victims but embarrassed by their more extreme members.

Whoops, there's that lie again about fiscal conservatives being "extreme", I mean, it's not like they're Klansmen or socialists like the Democrats have sported recently and still sport.

Ding and ding.

Your Random Saturday

Interesting statistics on NYC crime fighting:

The New York Times' story then duly repeats statistics offered by the CCR's Assistant Legal Director, Christopher Dunn. "In 2010, city officers made more street stops -- 601,055 -- than in any previous 12-month period." Proving what exactly? The story editorializes: "As a practical matter, the stops display a measurable racial disparity: black and Hispanic people generally represent more than 85 percent of those stopped by the police, though their combined populations make up a small share of the city's racial composition."...

With the exception of the glancing reference to Kelly's explanation, The New York Times never provides the most relevant statistics regarding minorities and violent crime, which concern not the percentage of blacks or Hispanics in the population, but the percentage of those who commit violent crimes. City Journal's Heather MacDonald supplied them:

"Blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city's population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city's population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies."

*

In light of the fact that Obama has decided to call taking taxpayer money and giving it to his cronies 'investment', is it safe to assume a catchy 2012 Obama campaign slogan would be:

Government - Investing your money in things private investors won't invest in on a dare!

Not quite as catchy as the whole 'doing the jobs Americans won't do, but close.

*

Way back when...

At the beginning of the Iraq War, over 70 percent of Americans supported it. Seventy-seven members of the Senate voted for the Iraq war resolution. This included several Democrats who ran for president in 2008: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton -- all of whom later renounced their vote and blamed it on everything from "having been misled" to bad sushi...

Even pathological anti-Bush critic Bill Maher, who disagreed with the invasion, seemed almost impressed by Bush's vision in deciding to invade Iraq.

Maher, shortly after the war started, told CNN's Larry King: "I always said I did not think going after a country that was not directly involved in 9/11 ... was not the approach. ... But you know what? The idea that Bush has -- and it is a big idea, I got to give him that. He's a guy with big ideas. The idea of transforming the Middle East and fighting this in a long-range way by having democracy in Iraq is not the worst idea I could think of, and I'm rooting for that plan." Yes, that Bill Maher...

Lied to? Bush retained the same CIA director, George Tenet, as served under Bill Clinton. Months after the start of the Iraq War, former President Bill Clinton visited Portugal. The Portuguese prime minister later said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

*

Ann sounds mad...not crazy mad, but tear your face off mad:

Liberals are on their high horses about a single audience member at CNN's Republican debate whom they believe wanted a hypothetical man without health insurance in a hypothetical coma to die -- hypothetically.

(Democrats want people in comas to die only when they are not hypothetical but real, like Terri Schiavo.)

I concur with the audience member who shouted "Yes!" This has nothing to do with any actual people in comas -- the people Democrats want to kill -- it's just a big "screw you" to the moderator...

Thanks to accumulated government mandates on insurance companies at that time, imposed by both the state and federal government, Obama's Missouri supporter was allowed to buy health insurance only provided it covered: chiropractors, speech therapists, hearing therapists, psychologists, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists (Missouri), as well as mental health benefits, unlimited hospital stays for newborns and mothers, and reconstructive surgery after mastectomy (federal).

When starting her own business and struggling to make ends meet, the Obama supporter might have been better served by a cheaper policy that covered only, say, actual medical problems.

But the government didn't permit her that option. Obama's poster-child for government-run health insurance was a victim of government-micromanaged health insurance.

It would be as if the government prohibited us from buying cars unless they were Lexus SUVs, fully loaded with every possible option...

Why are the only two options always a behemoth government program or the guy dies?

The subject is a baby kitten, but the real beneficiaries are the people with great government jobs, fantastic pensions, long vacations, and self-paced and self-evaluated working environments.

As for Brian Williams' grandstandy question to Gov. Rick Perry about Texas' execution rate ("Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?"): There is no credible evidence that a single innocent person has been executed in this country since at least 1950.

There is, however, a lot of evidence that innocent people have been killed when murderers were not executed...

Regarding Williams' baby seal question about starving children in Texas with distended stomachs: No one is starving in this country. The only bloated stomach problem affecting America's poor is a medical condition known as "obesity."

According to the General Accounting Office, in 2008, the federal government had 18 separate food programs that spent $62.5 billion each year to feed the poor. And that was before the Food Stamp President assumed office.

I would venture to guess that the only children in America who have ever suffered from kwashiorkor, the condition that causes distended bellies, were victims of child abuse -- at the hands of the sort of monsters Williams is so opposed to executing.

People aren't buying the left's emotional appeals about imaginary victims anymore. The audience member's "Yes!" was a way of laughing in the moderators' faces for trying to pull that crap.

*

The coin's other side:

It's nearly impossible to receive a death sentence these days -- unless you do something completely crazy like shoot a cop in full view of dozens of witnesses in a Burger King parking lot, only a few hours after shooting at a passing car while exiting a party.

That's what Troy Davis did in August 1989...

After a two-week trial with 34 witnesses for the state and six witnesses for the defense, the jury of seven blacks and five whites took less than two hours to convict Davis of Officer Mark MacPhail's murder...

It's true that the bulk of the evidence against Davis was eyewitness testimony. That tends to happen when you shoot someone in a busy Burger King parking lot.

Eyewitness testimony, like all evidence tending to show guilt, has gotten a bad name recently, but the "eyewitness" testimony in this case did not consist simply of strangers trying to distinguish one tall black man from another. For one thing, several of the eyewitnesses knew Davis personally...

Some eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing a white shirt, some said it was a white shirt with writing, and some identified it specifically as a white Batman shirt. Not one witness said the man in the yellow shirt pistol-whipped the vagrant or shot the cop.

Several of Davis' friends testified -- without recantation -- that he was the one in a white shirt. Several eyewitnesses, both acquaintances and strangers, specifically identified Davis as the one who shot Officer MacPhail.

Now the media claim that seven of the nine witnesses against Davis at trial have recanted.

First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis -- not nine...

Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane...

Three recantations were from friends of Davis, making minor or completely unbelievable modifications to their trial testimony. For example, one said he was no longer sure he saw Davis shoot the cop, even though he was five feet away at the time. His remaining testimony still implicated Davis...

The court specifically warned Davis that his refusal to call his only two genuinely recanting witnesses would make their affidavits worthless. But Davis still refused to call them -- suggesting, as the court said, that their lawyer-drafted affidavits would not have held up under cross-examination.

With death penalty opponents so fixated on Davis' race -- he's black -- it ought to be noted that all the above witnesses are themselves African-American. The first man Davis shot in the car that night was African-American.

Actual Tax Info

At Newsbusters: link and link.

Of course the left continually objects to the facts. Why? Because, like Jim Carrey's character in Liar, Liar - it's devastating to their argument.

Doo-Doo

Lost In Space.com

--- BREAKING NEWS ---

SPACE.COM BREAKS NASA REPORT THAT APPROXIMATELY 99.9% OF THE EARTH'S POPULATION HAS BEEN WIPED OUT!

THIS IS NOT A DRILL! BILLIONS DEAD!

FoxNews reported the devastating news this afternoon to shocked readers worldwide.

MSNBC immediately went live with a panel of Democrat strategists on how the new electoral map would benefit Obama next November, whether the GOP would lose the House, and began assembling a 'wish list' of prominent conservatives they hoped were among the no-longer-among-us.

Liberal columnists immediately cranked up their blogs praising the massive stimulating effect the deaths of more than 6 billion people would have on the economy. "DEAD?" screamed the headline of a Paul Krugman post. "I'll tell you what's dead - unemployment! Obama landslide 2012!"

The New York Times' afternoon headline screamed: NASA: BILLIONS DEAD - WOMEN AND MINORITIES HARDEST HIT!

-+-+-

Space.com via FoxNews: Huge Tumbling Satellite Could Fall to Earth Over US Tonight or Saturday, NASA Says

NASA officials have said the the chances that a piece of UARS debris hits and injures one of the nearly 7 million people on the planet are about 1 in 3,200.

Comparatively Obama

Here's a little chart I whipped up:You might want to click on it to embiggen it to see the finer points (try to pretend that I didn't have the mouse hovering over the chart when I took the snapshot or that I took the snapshot the wrong way :P ). Remember as you look at it that a straight, horizontal line is GDP growing or stagnating at a constant rate - an upward trend is accelerating economic growth and a downward trend is an economy not just shrinking, but doing it like jamming on the brakes on the freeway.

What I wanted to do was see how Obama's first two and half years in office as a leader, economically, have compared to Bush, Clinton, and Reagan. The zero (0) on the horizontal axis is actually when they were inaugurated (so 1Q1981 for Reagan, 1Q2009 for Obama, etc) and I included the preceding year to see what they inherited.

Reagan (blue - colors as set by default by Excel), of course, inherited the disastrous Carter legacy. Apart from a hopeful spike after his election, you can see a sharp drop in GDP growth performance as soon as he got into office. It is important to note that this occurred before Reagan had been in office long enough to do anything, get anything passed, etc.

Clinton (red), inherited a stable economy from GHW Bush that went almost into recession just before he was inaugurated. He is the only one that didn't actually come into office on a recession.

GW Bush (green), inherited an economy that began tanking about 6 months before he was sworn into office. Officially the recession was starting right around when he was sworn in.

Obama (purple), inherited an economy well into recession. At the time he was sworn in, the recession was already ending as GDP decline had sharply slowed and was trending in the right direction.

As you can see from these 4 examples, only Obama inherited a recovering economy, the others all inherited economies that basically tanked just as they entered office (Clinton/Bush) or was years in the toilet already (Reagan). The next part is to see how they dealt with it. That's what I wanted to see.

Reagan: As you can see, the most violent swings are on his line. This isn't a surprise since he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression - unemployment above anything seen under the other leaders, double-digit inflation, skyrocketing interest rates, etc. About 2 years into his term, though, you can plainly see the recovery take hold. At the 2-1/2 year mark the economy was glowing white hot.

Clinton: Again, you can see faltering early in his term. Before he could do anything, before his first budget, etc. we can see the economy recovering from the slow down triggered by the tax hikes signed by the elder Bush. As Clinton signs his first budget you can see that growth is well entrenched, already. But as we keep looking, at the 2-1/2 point in the Clinton presidency, 2 years after his influence began to be felt and his tax hikes took hold, the economy was slowing, sputtering, and nearly in recession. He would go on to be rescued by Newt Gingrich and a GOP Congress that presented him with balanced budgets to sign. Still, before any of that happened, at the 2-1/2 year mark, the Clinton-led economy was staggering.

Bush: Here we see the last gasps of the Clinton/Gingrich economy about a half-year before Bush took office. By the time he did his first budget the economy was well into recession. Bush and the GOP Congress enacted a first round of tax cuts that stopped the decline in its tracks (see marker 2 indicating 3Q2001). Shortly thereafter the effects of the 9-11 attacks and Enron drive a fist into the gut of our economy. That decline continues through the tax cuts of 2003 where you can see their sharp impact. However, again, let's look at the 2-1/2 year mark where we see 6 months of solid growth that is the leading edge of the historic run of excellent economic times in the US that were enjoyed until just about when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 on the lie that they would 'end the Iraq war'.

Obama: OK, clearly the economy was steep in recession during his campaign. As the figures clearly show, recovery began a full quarter before he entered office. Before he had time to do anything, before any 'stimulus', the recession was ending and a typical correction was underway as the economy began to grow again. Almost immediately after signing the stimulus package into law, the economy's sharp upward trajectory slowed and slowed, though still growing, on government expenditures. As those expenditures slowed and Hope'n'Change wore off, as we went through Recovery Summer 1.0, the economy was slowing. Into year 3, as we went through Recovery Summer 2.0, the economy essentially stopped growing completely, which is where we've been for a couple of quarters (the next report is expected to show little, if any, growth).

So, for what it's worth, that's how Obama stacks up to some of his recent predecessors. 2-1/2 years into his term his leadership has produced a stagnant economy. As did Clinton. By this point under Bush and Reagan the economy was hopping and taking off (Clinton's came soon) to soar. This despite the fact that Obama was the only one to inherit a recovering economy while Clinton inherited the only one not in recession. Reagan inherited the worst and it took nearly two years to straighten out, but his also took off the fastest by this point. Bush had to deal with the worst first-year issues, but he also steered us to growth, not stagnation, at this point in his presidency.

I could, and might, do the same with some other economic indicators...we'll see.

editoriaLIES

In more timely fashion...

Daily Gazette, September 21, 2011

That's too bad, because the plan does have merit, but unless income taxes on high earners are raised, it wouldn't cut the deficit enough.

Lie. Actual calculations everywhere on the web show that even taxing "high earners" at 100%, a ludicrous proposition, will make barely a dent in Obama's spending, forget about "enough".

Nor would it do so fairly, inflicting far more pain on middle and lower-income Americans and retirees than on the wealthy, whose tax cuts under George W. Bush, along with the two wars he got us in, are at least as responsible for the huge increase in our debt load over the last decade as President Obama's attempts to stimulate the economy.

Lie #2. It is utterly dishonest to blame Bush for our war in Afghanistan...unless they care to make the argument that 9-11 was carried out by the Bush administration and the war there was started under that particular false pretense? Hmmm?

Lie #3. Actual calculations available all over the place show that tax receipts, yes, after the "tax cuts", are today high enough that if spending had been increased only at the rate of inflation since the GOP lost control of Congress, would be high enough to today be producing surpluses - therefore it is not honest, it is a lie, to say they are "at least as responsible" for the increase in spending under Obama. It is, in fact, delusional to the point of requiring medication.

Lie #4. Tax receipts, following the "tax cuts", rose to record levels. Receipts, particularly from the "wealthy" (certainly not from the additional couple of percent who saw their income tax load drop to zero), reached never-before-seen highs. There is no way they could inflict more pain on other income groups who saw their percentage of the total tax burden decrease.

Did A CNN Reporter Just Find Saddam's WMD?

Well...

1) It kinda looks that way; and

2) CNN isn't hyping it, which in this upside down media world, is another vote in favor of it being true.

Rob Port notes some coverage that is out there:

CNN’s Ben Wedeman said on Thursday that he had discovered what appeared to be processed uranium sitting in a Libyan warehouse filled with thousands of barrels apparently containing radioactive material.

Libya was one of the speculated destinations for stuff that Saddam hightailed it out of Iraq at the last minute. Allegedly. Etc.

Leadership Failure

Maybe it's just me, but when your Fed head can only come up with a 'plan' that triggers a 2% loss in the markets in Japan, 4% losses in the UK, and 3% losses here at home, one might think it's time for a leader to lead and find someone else...like Larry Kudlow :) That'd be fun.

For a guy constantly promising to kick the rear ends of private businesses, he sure tolerates a lot of failures in his inner circle.

-

IBD explains the problems with Bernanke's plan here: link

In summary form:

"Sounds good, but we've tried it before, in 1961. The strategy — dubbed "Operation Twist" — was supposed to keep rates low and give the economy a badly needed shot in the arm...

Even Bernanke, in a paper written seven years ago, termed Operation Twist a "failure." So why should this time be any different? The answer is, it won't be."

*

More recently, Japan tried something quite similar — over and over — after it fell into a protracted slump in 1990. And, just as in the U.S., Japan's government tried repeated stimulus plans. It didn't work.

The Kennedy administration tried something else, however, that did work — steep tax cuts. From a slow start, the 1960s turned into a boom decade that was later dubbed the "Go-Go Years."

---

And now in Seussian form:

I am Business

I am Business
Business I am

That Ben-I-am
That Ben-I-am!
We do not like
that Ben-I-am

Do you like
low rate log jam

We do not like it,
Ben-I-am.
We do not like
low rate log jam.

Would you like them
for your house?
Would you like them
for your bus-i-nous?

We do not like them
for our house.
We do not like them
for our bus-i-nous.
We do not like low rate log jam.
We do not like them, Ben-I-am.

Would you use them
stores, big box?
Would you use them
stores, small stocks?

Not us, big box.
Not us, small stocks.
Not for our house.
Not for our bus-i-nous.
We would not use them here or there.
We would not use them anywhere.
We would not use low rate log jam.
We do not like them, Ben-I-am.

Would you? Could you?
Company car?
Use them! Use them!
Here they are.

We would not,
could not,
company car

You may like them.
You will see.
You may like them
almost free?
not almost free.
We would not, could not almost free.
Not company car! You let me be.

Employee train! Employee train!
Employee train! Employee train!
Could you, would you
Employee train?

Not employee train! Not almost free!
Not company car! Ben! Let me be!
We would not, could not, company, big box.
We could not, would not, company, small stocks.
We will not use them for bus-i-nous
We will not use them for our house.
We will not use them here or there.
We will not use them anywhere.
We do not like them, Ben-I-am.

Say!
Spending spark?
Here a new spending spark!
Would it, could it, spending spark?

It would not, could not,
spending spark.

Would you, could you,
solar window pane?

We would not, could not, solar window pane.
Not spending spark. Not new employee train,
Not company car, Not almost free.
We do not like them, Ben, you see.
Not for our house. Not company, big box.
Not for our bus-i-nous. Not company, small stocks.
We will not use them here or there.
We do not like them anywhere!

You do not like
low rate log jam?

We do not
like them,
Ben-I-am.

Stimulus, stimulus,
hire more!

We would not,
could not,
hire more!

Stimulus, stimulus,
borrow more!

We could not, would not, hire more.
We will not, will not, borrow more.
We will not use them solar window pane.
We will not use them new employee train.
Not spending spark! Not almost free!
Not company car! You let me be!
We do not like them company, big box.
We do not like them company, small stocks.
We will not use them for our house.
We do not like them for bus-i-nous.
We do not like them here or there.
We do not like them ANYWHERE!

We do not like
low rate log jam!

We do not like them,
Ben-I-am.

OPP

Here's a broad brush, ugly calc chart showing how useless "tax the rich" is compared to Obama's spending problem.

Face it...that's not where the money is as this WSJ chart demonstrates.

editoriaLIES

Schenectady Daily Gazette, April 17, 2011

President Obama, in his speech Wednesday, sounded like what he is at heart: a moderate problem-solver

Lie. In his brief stint in the Senate, "moderate" Obama was rated the most liberal Senator in the entire body - to the left of Ted Kennedy and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders. He is far and away the most pro-abortion president the nation has ever seen - he is, "at heart", as pro-abortion as a human being can be without actually advocating openly for sharp increases in abortion or public abortions or something, how else to describe his votes against abortion limits and his vote against requiring that medical care be given to infants that are 'accidentally' born instead of aborted - even NARAL was in favor of that, so "at heart" "moderate" Obama is well to the left of NARAL. As for being a "problem-solver"...what problem, exactly, has Obama solved? Anyone? *crickets*

he is offering the country an alternative to the unfair Republican formula of tax cuts for the rich and sacrifice for everyone else

Lie #2. As usual, the GOP proposed tax rate cuts for everyone, not "the rich". And what "sacrifice" was asked of "everyone else"? Giving up getting more money taken from "the rich"?

Ryan came out with his own debt reduction proposal recently that is substantive and serious, but flawed. Flawed because it asks nothing of the rich (in fact, gives them more)

Lie #3. "gives them more"? Sorry, saying that taking less from someone that they already own is NOT the same as "giving" them something that they do not already have. Additionally, this is a lie because past "tax cuts" have actually resulted in "the rich" paying more taxes, not less.

goes about entitlement reform the wrong way -- e.g. privatizing Medicare with a voucher plan.

Lies #4 and #5. Even media "fact checkers" were unable to swallow this lie, that Ryan's plan "privatized" Medicare or that it was a "voucher plan".

==========

Albany Times Union, April 20, 2011

Then came a House Republican budget plan based on tax cuts, ending Medicare and eliminating the President's signature health care reform law.

Lie. There was nothing about "ending Medicare", unlike the Democrat plan to end it by letting it go bankrupt.

In the next month or so, the federal government is expected to hit the current debt ceiling of $14.29 trillion. If Congress doesn't allow more borrowing, it would have to find nearly $800 billion in cuts to balance the budget for the rest of the year, or risk defaulting on debt for the first time in America's history.

Lie #2. To avoid a default that could not happen, the federal government just had to stop spending above previous levels.

==========

Times Union, April 29, 2011

Whatever you may think about tax breaks for the oil industry, keep in mind that somebody has to pay for them.

Lie. Actually, no matter what the left may think about "tax breaks", no one has to "pay for them", it's just less money taken from the private sector to be spent by the government. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, to show how dishonest the statement is, I could say "not everyone in the country is taxed at a rate of 100% of their income - somebody has to pay for that failure to take all the money from everybody".

Most Americans also undoubtedly get the illogic, not to mention insult, of their tax dollars going to effectively subsidize some of the world's most profitable companies.

Lie #2. How many times must we see this? Not taking more of someone's money, money they already have, is NOT equal to giving them something - aka "subsidizing" them.

And an industry that has greased enough campaign funds to consistently rank among the top 20 Washington donors -- and quite often the top 10 -- has no trouble preserving tax breaks that have long outlived any public purpose they might have once served. Now, they are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth -- from taxpayers to oil executives and stockholders.

Lie #3. I guess we need to keep seeing it. NOT taking someone's money to give it to someone else is "redistribution of wealth" how exactly? Exactly, it's not. That's a lie. And last time I checked, oil executives and stockholders were taxpayers, also, in fact much more so than other people.

How do Mr. Boehner and his colleagues defend the federal government -- and, we can't stress enough, ordinary taxpayers -- paying to prop up wealthy corporations like Exxon-Mobil, whose 2010 profit surpassed $19 billion?

Lie #4. "paying"? Did I miss something? We "paid" Exxon-Mobil?

We might even use some of the money saved on oil industry tax breaks for that.

Lie #5. And again. The federal government is not giving anyone anything that can be "saved" by not taking more of someone's earnings. Why aren't we saving trillions by taxing 100% of everyone's everything?

For some perspective, that's more than 10 times the federal funding for family planning that Mr. Boehner's Republicans nearly shut down the government trying to wipe out.

Abortions are "family planning"? Aren't they anti-family planning? Or family un-planning?

==========

Times Union, June 3, 2011

Both sides are all too willing to use the very frightening, if rather remote, possibility of the government defaulting on its enormous debt as a bargaining chip in what should be an entirely separate battle over cutting spending and curtailing borrowing.

Lie. The possibility of default was not "remote", it was nonexistent, short of the collapse of the nation and suspension of the Constitution. Factually, there was a 0.0% chance of default.

That puts the Democrats on the side of fiscal inevitability, for without authorizing the government's authority to take on more debt, Social Security checks couldn't be issued, military personnel couldn't be paid and other, similar obligations would go unmet.

Lie #2. The Times Union, like most of the left, deliberately ignores the inconvenient-to-them fact that the government continues to collect tax revenue. That revenue, not borrowed money, could have (and is) used to pay Social Security recipients and military personnel, along with "similar obligations". Deliberately ignoring this to claim that all our spending is borrowed money is a lie.

And for the most extreme, tea party-aligned elements of the GOP -- still a minority, fortunately

Lie #3. We keep seeing this, also. Poll after poll demonstrates that, whether they self-identify as aligning with the tea party, Americans in vast swathes agree with the fiscal principles that have are now recognized as 'tea party values'. Most of America is not "extreme".

Oh, probably in the final hours leading up to Aug. 2 -- the new deadline for a government that no longer will be able to pay its bills without additional borrowing.

Lie #4. Right from Obama's teleprompter. As everyone was forced to admit in the end, the date was neither certain nor meaningful, our "bills" could be paid out of incoming revenue "without additional borrowing".

This is your government, America. It's unlikely to bring about the catastrophe of a $1.3 trillion debt default, but it's sure willing to flirt with the possibility of it.

Lie #5. There was no possibility, the only ones "flirting" with it were those lying that it was even a "remote" possibility. It never was.

==========

Times Union, June 10, 2011

In Boston last week, she managed to mangle the lore of local Revolutionary War-era hero Paul Revere.

Lie. Palin was correct in what she actually said (even if the things she didn't say stretched the imaginations of those that dishonestly claimed to hear them).

Ms. Palin is back in the news now more for her stubborn refusal to acknowledge her mistake than for her spotty recollection of an early yet crucial chapter of the American story. She would rather rewrite history than admit misunderstanding it.

Lies #2, 3, and 4 as underlined above. As her statements were correct, as backed by historians and anybody with a history book, all of the dishonest smears above are lies.

The suggestion that the purpose of Paul Revere's ride through Boston and on to the rebel outposts in Lexington and Concord in 1775 was to send a stern, public warning to America's British oppressors is incorrect.

Lie #5. Governor Palin did not say this.

It's also disingenuous to suggest that Mr. Revere's assertion to the British upon his capture that a rebel mobilization was under way in the Massachusetts countryside matches up so neatly with history the way Ms. Palin has been telling and retelling it.

Lie #6. Historians confirm that what Governor Palin said is basically exactly what happened, which only makes sense given that she had just taken a Paul Revere tour before saying what she did.

The real purpose of Mr. Revere's mission was to quietly warn rebel leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British soldiers intended to arrest them.

Lie #7. "quietly"? Bells ringing and guns shooting off is "quietly"? Somebody needs a history lesson and it's not Governor Palin.

Ms. Palin's fans went so far as to try to edit Wikipedia's account of Mr. Revere's ride to make it conform with her revisionist account.

Lie #8. Governor Palin's "account" has been supported by historians. Calling the truth "revisionist" is both a lie and, frankly, rather Orwellian.

On Ms. Palin goes, on a seemingly never-ending disinformation tour.

Lie #9. Governor Palin's account was verified by historians, was factual and correct, and therefore calling it "disinformation" is nothing but a lie.

Just imagine how she could further distort history if she were to make it

Lie whopping #10! Palin really twists their panties! Using "further distort history" when Governor Palin's statement was verified by historians is a lie.

---

No wonder I've put these off for so long...they make me sick reading so much filth.

How Stupid Can The MorOns Be?

This stupid.

And despite ridiculous claims of "class warfare," the fact is Republicans want to end Medicare to protect billionaires.

That's from their latest MorOn.org fundraising letter. Saying that the "class warfare" claims are "ridiculous"...just before claiming that the GOP is protecting the rich by attacking the poor.

Face. Palm.

Clue For The Clueless

For the clueless (and pretent clueless) editors at American newspapers and leftwing pundits...

When conservatives complain about the size and effectiveness of the federal government, we're talking about helping people get a better view of game shows, controlling what type of light bulb we can buy, and stuff like this: $16 muffins, $8 coffee served in Justice audit...not our defensive capabilities, response to regional disasters, or coordination of multi-state planning efforts.

Clearly you don't, or won't, understand this.

You're welcome.

Well Said

Whilst fending off the increasingly feeble and out of touch attacks of an MSNBC host, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), perhaps accidentally, nails a perfect talking point that more conservatives should be using:

"I am for generating more revenue in this country by having more people working and more taxpayers, not higher taxes on those who are working today."

Exactamundo. The way to 'raise revenue' to offset necessary spending is by growing the tax base - and since the left will not let the bottom 50% of taxpayers contribute, we need to grow the upper half's pie by putting more of us to work. Government doesn't create jobs. It couldn't in the 30's and it didn't with a trillion dollars a couple of years ago. Taking money from those of us that are working to spend on boondoggles that only enrich Obama donors will not widen that tax base. Taking more from those that are working won't do it. Only by finding more people to tax can that base grow, and to do that government needs to let the private sector create jobs.

It's really just another example of how big government leftists don't understand how things work in the private sector. You don't get rich selling tacos by selling one taco for a million dollars profit, you get rich by selling a million tacos for a dollar profit each. You don't raise revenue by squeezing more and more blood from the stones you're already squeezing, you find new stones to squeeze.

editoriaLIES

Times Union, April 8, 2011

Also on the list is Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Gaffney in one column headlined "The Jihadist Vote" linked candidate Barack Obama to an Islamic "fifth column" out to destroy Western civilization from within. He lumped together the homeless, felons, suicide bombers, Islamic prison converts, Moammar Gadhafi, Louis Farrakhan, the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law to question "Barack Obama's ties to and affinity for jihadists who have their own reasons for relishing his promise of 'change' for this country. Unfortunately, the change his Islamists supporters have in mind is for global theocratic rule under Shariah, and the end of our constitutional, democratic government."

Actually, it was candidate Barack Obama who linked himself to the Muslim Brotherhood, as Mr. Gaffney's column clearly states. Agreeing with Mr. Gaffney's assessment? That fringe right-wing group...NBC news.

As to the lie, Mr. Gaffney, as you can read for yourself, does not "lump together" these groups, he merely lists different issues together as unresolved issues in a campaign. That's like saying a debate "lumped together" the economy, foreign relations, the war on drugs, and veterans because each was discussed during a presidential debate, as if the moderator conflated these issues, when in fact they were raised independently of each other. This is what Mr. Gaffney did in his column. The Times Union lies in claiming that he "lumped" them together, just because he discussed several campaign issues together into one campaign column at the shocking time of a couple weeks before election day. In case there is any doubt as to this lie, the statement, as you can see, ties all of these disparate items together and then claims that they are all tied to one purpose, some kind of jihadist takeover or something.

==========

The Times Union, April 10, 2011

The clash over the final $5.5 billion was a sideshow, compared to the coming showdown over raising the nation's debt ceiling and resolving next year's budget . The Democrats managed to spare, for now, the Head Start program, the Environmental Protection Agency and women's health care.

A lie, the GOP, of course, did not plan on eliminating "the Head Start program, the Environmental Protection Agency and women's health care." What a foolish statement.

The sad but blunt truth is that the tea party and the other more radical elements of the Republican Party have effectively hijacked the political dialogue.

A second lie - the 'tea party' is not a "more radical" element of the GOP, poll after poll indicates that the values most commonly attributed to the 'tea party' are shared by many Americans, if not a majority of them. I questioned whether they meant other elements were more radical than the tea party, but that would have said "and the other, more radical, elements of the Republican Party", but they didn't say that.

A third lie is that the group pressing for a balanced approach to budgeting have "hijacked" the dialogue. Merriam-Webster gives the following options for "hijack":

1
a : to steal by stopping a vehicle on the highway b : to commandeer (a flying airplane) especially by coercing the pilot at gunpoint c : to stop and steal from (a vehicle in transit) d : kidnap
2
a : to steal or rob as if by hijacking b : to subject to extortion or swindling

Which of these applies to a group rallying support for a historic wave of electoral victories at the ballot box last November? Exactly. None. True, this is somewhat hyperbole on their part, but when their intent is nothing more than to smear, the use of a lie needs to be called out.

The Republicans are feeling triumphant, while the Democrats are searching for their voice. As for the rest of us, the last thing we need is more one-sided debate.

Let me get this straight...when the Democrats controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress with unstoppable majorities, well, that was lusty debate? But now, when the GOP controls just one of those three entities, now we only have "one-sided debate"? Riiiiiiight.

==========

The Times Union, April 12, 2011

Maybe America won't be able to pay the more than three quarters of a trillion dollars in debt payments due through Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year.

Lie. There was never a "maybe" about paying our debts, they're constitutionally mandated unlike other spending.

He's egged on particularly by tea party-backed members who seem disappointed that they didn't get to shut down the government last week, and appear to be yearning for a chance to throw a monkey wrench into the economy just to see what happens.

Lie #2. I personally never saw any rational or responsible person, "tea party-backed" or not, that called for or seemed to "yearn" for some kind of default or something "just to see what happens". And, since the Times Union certainly never gave any evidence of such, their dishonest talking point remains nothing but that.

He should reject any attempts to muddy the debt ceiling issue with more of the partisan, ideological side issues that Republicans tried to force into the budget debate, from robbing women of health care to weakening air quality regulations.

Lie #3. Do I even need to get into whether or not the GOP was calling for "robbing women of health care", translated, apparently, as stopping federal funding of abortions with an abortion being "health care"?

He should insist that, after this vote, the question of debt limits should be debated in the context of the federal budget, except for national emergencies. The budget is where the President and Congress should decide how much the country will spend -- or overspend. That's where the books are balanced, or not.

Ummmmmm....yeah, but you see the Democrats have REFUSED to put forth a budget for nearly three years. So when, exactly, would anyone have a chance to "debate" anything? Perhaps Obama should "insist" that he and his party should actually do a budget.

Among other things, it should end, as he promised, the tax cuts for the rich that the country cannot afford

Lie #4 and one oft repeated. Failing to take more money that people have earned is not something you have to "afford". How can Sears afford letting you not buy their appliances??

The country has been racking up this debt since Ronald Reagan espoused a smaller government with unaffordable tax cuts and massive military building, right through George W. Bush's two wars, tax cuts and bank bailouts, and, yes, to Mr. Obama's economic stimulus and the renewal of the Bush tax cuts at Republicans' behest.

Lie #5. The nation's debt began growing well before the '80s.

Lie #6. Tax revenues grew explosively after tax rates were "cut" "unaffordably" while Reagan was president. They also grew to record levels after George W. Bush's tax rate cuts. And I'm pretty sure the Democrats voted against raising taxes last year, not just Republicans, since the GOP only controlled one piece of Congress and all.

This is America's debt. To even suggest not paying it is utterly irresponsible.

To even suggest that anyone was suggesting it shouldn't or wouldn't be paid is dishonest.

==========

The Times Union, April 14, 2011

THE STAKES:

A nation goes deeper into debt while it gives tax breaks it can't afford to those who need them least.

Actually, the last three times that tax rates were cut (across the board, I would remind the editors), tax revenues soared, as in went UP and, therefore, did not and could not have led to more debt. That's like saying you got a raise and it put you go into debt, it's a lie and ludicrous on its face.

Ten years ago, then-President George W. Bush sold America on his tax cuts -- not a terribly tough sales job, to be sure -- on the premise that they were the key to even greater prosperity.

America would be awash in jobs, and out of debt by 2010, predicted the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank that provided intellectual justification for the idea.

And here we are, in 2011, awash in unemployment, and deeper in debt than ever.

The tax cuts didn't work.

Barely worth debunking. The tax cuts, of course, did work. Tax revenue soared as unemployment dropped to historically low levels, trends which reversed themselves after the Democrats took over Congress and factors unrelated to tax policy, but tied directly to Democrat policies over the past decades, nearly crushed our economy. This is lie #2.

The problem is that they're only making things worse, and have been for some time.

Lie #3, increased federal revenue is making our debt worse? Really? No, not really.

To borrow a phrase, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Lie #4, increased federal revenue is part of the problem? Really? No, not really.

The evidence in front of us every day refutes all the pandering political talk to the contrary. We have gone from a bustling economy and a balanced budget to 9.2 percent unemployment and a national debt of $14.2 trillion -- $8.6 trillion more than it was in 2000.

Indeed, what lawyers these editors would make! It would be quite the trial of the past decade's economy that failed to introduce the "evidence in front of us" of the 9-11 attacks, $4 gas, the recession that Clinton left Bush, and Clinton-era rules that made banks give mortgages to people using unemployment benefits as 'income'. And isn't their time frame choice interesting? Going from one Democrat president to a time 2 years after a Democrat was elected and 4 years after the Democrats gained control of the federal checkbook, ignoring the historically unprecedented period of job growth and prosperity under the GOP sandwiched between these Democrat periods? When exactly was that "bustling economy"? Why it was in the mid-2000's with Bush as president, a GOP Congress, and the same tax rates we see today. Interesting. The last time rates were higher we were experiencing a recession, just around when Bush was taking office and before the tax rate cuts he championed softened it considerably.

It does not have the revenue to support the spending on two wars started by Mr. Bush

Lie #5, the President, despite what Mr. Obama has done, does not have the authority to start a war, only Congress can do that legally. And the sub-lie, of course, is that one would be hard pressed to claim that Bush started the war in Afghanistan against al-qaida and its Taliban host, you know, given the whole 9-11 thing that the Times Union seems to have forgotten.

It doesn't have the money for a costly prescription drug program for seniors.

This would be the same "costly prescription drug program for seniors" that we don't "have the money for" that, in 2010, the Times Union described by saying:

For those who do have coverage, this bill promises to hold down costs that were rising at a pace that threatened to make health care unaffordable. Senior citizens will get more help with prescription drugs; eventually, the all-too-pleasantly nicknamed "doughnut hole" that forces many to spend thousands of their fixed-income dollars will be eliminated.

That is, applauding Obamacare they lauded the way Medicare D would be expanded to cover more prescription drug costs for seniors. Shouldn't they be calling for the elimination of this benefit if we don't "have the money" for it?

As a result of the massive unemployment that grew under Mr. Bush and is only slowly abating under this president

Ummmm....yeah? I think they'd better check their figures. Lie #6. Unemployment under Bush and a GOP was historically low. Under Obama, using the same start-to-finish figures they want to use for Bush, unemployment has soared and basically remained at a historically high level.

just as it didn't have the money for the irksome but very necessary bailouts of the financial and auto industries and the hundreds of billions it cost to stimulate the economy.

A year after the recovery-less "recovery summer" the Times Union still dares to claim that the economy was stimulated? Lie #7.

Yet the House Republican strategy for America's budget is just the opposite: it upends the social contract, funding tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in part by cutting things like health care for the elderly and early education programs for children. It enriches the comfortable at the expense of the vulnerable.

Lie #8, the GOP proposals have included plans to save entitlements. The Democrat plan for these programs is bankruptcy. This is not open to debate - these programs are bankrupting the nation and the Democrats have no plan to fix them.

Lie #9, all the "tax cuts" for "millionaires and billionaires" in recent history have, demonstrably, not in opinion but in fact, have resulted in this group paying MORE taxes and a greater and greater percentage of the total taxes paid in this nation.

Lie #10, the Democrats voted to cut Medicare, this is not opinion, this is fact, Obamacare included direct cuts to Medicare funding - that's the Democrats not the Republicans. And didn't they just say we couldn't "have the money" for so much health coverage for seniors?? Early education programs that studies find do nothing for children? What a loss.

Lie #11, how, exactly, is one "enriched" by having less money taken from them? And why doesn't the government just make the poor richer by taking less of their money? And how is it at the "expense" of the "vulnerable"? They're not paying anything more, so how is that at their "expense"??

Sigh.

Catch AttackWatch Fevah!

Obama sets up website for people to snitch on their neighbors and candidates if they "lie" about Obama (by telling the truth).

Much hilarity ensues.

Their attempts to rule Twitter haven't gone so well, either. First, you might recall, Obama decided he should Twit away to the faithful. A valuable use of his time! Sadly, after his account became exposed as a fundraising venue, his followers dropped like a piano in a Laurel and Hardy short. The AttackWatch (watch out!) attempt has met some resistance...

"I saw a kid eating fries with his happy meal yesterday," tweeted someone signing himself NostraSeamus...

"Watch out, monthly jobless report. @AttackWatch is onto you," tweeted SECupp.

"I'd like to report my neighbour — Bob, for surreptitiously scraping the Obama sticker off the bumper of his Prius," tweeted AmeriPundit.

"I saw 6 ATM's in an alley, killing a job. It looked like a hate crime!" tweeted ThorInAZ.

Love the one from columnist SE Cupp.

Still No Consensus

So making news is an RPI physicist that decided the clique of the church of the warming globe wasn't for him anymore.

Seems that this group of physicists, well, those that speak the loudest, have gone from a 'maybe' to a 'we want more global warming money'. Nobel laureate Ivan Giaever, for one, decided that they had more faith than him and told them to kiss off.

No consensus...never was.

Wonder if we'll be treated to an "article" by Brian Nearing in the TU...

How Is This Not Simply Lying?

So the 'rich', the 'Warren Buffett's of the nation, pay less taxes than everyone else, eh?

So, let's see...here are the 2010 tax tables: link

If you made $10,000 you paid $1,085 before adjustments, 10.85%.
If you made $50,000 you paid $8,688 before adjustments, 17.38%.
If you made $95,000 you paid $20,316 before adjustments, 21.39%.
If you made $200,000 you paid $51,117 before adjustments, 25.56%.
If you made $500,000 you paid $152,644 before adjustments, 30.53%.
If you made $1,200,000 you paid $397,644 before adjustments, 33.14%.

If you paid capital gains you paid the same amount, irregardless of quantity, so those are automatically equal percentage-wise.

Therefore, as any idiot can plainly see, the 'rich' paid more than the 'poor' in taxes and were taxed at a higher rate.

And the president and his liberal backers want the 'millionaires' to pay more because they're not paying as much as everyone else and need to pay their 'fair share'.

Yet the numbers clearly reflect that they already pay more than everyone else. And nearly 50% of people actually pay no income taxes after adjustments, so it's unclear what their 'fair share' is, we just don't know and the left won't tell us, they simply seem to be saying that their 'fair share' is actually zero.

How is the claim that the rich pay less than others anything but a lie? In aggregate and individually they pay, clearly, more. Comparing someone that is paying capital gains to someone's income taxes is a ludicrous exercise, apples to oranges, because if the person paying capital gains were instead earning income, they would be paying at a higher rate and if the person paying income tax were paying capital gains, they would be paying the exact same as everyone else.

The rest is word games and lies from a demagogue desperate to "spread the wealth around" even more, because "everyone is better off"...just like we're "better off" than when he started "spreading the wealth around" 3 years ago?

Protect Obama Bunch

Here's the story, of a corrupt solar deal
That was ex-posed when Solyndra went bankrupt
And all the signs seem to be leading
Right back to Obama

Here's the story, of the nation's media
Who were busy defending Obama daily
They made him look good, even in bad times
Yet kept get-ting exposed

'Til one day Solyndra emails became public
And we knew it was much more than a hunch
That the press would somehow defend Obama
Commence attacks on the GOP, Protect Obama Bunch
Protect Obama Bunch,

Attack the investigating GOP, Protect Obama Bunch
Protect Obama Bunch

Remember when the press could pull crap like the Times Union did in today's editorial where they spend 95% of the time attacking the GOP, Congress, and especially the GOP rep leading the investigation into the deepening mire that is the Solyndra scandal (where it appears (from records, not just rumor) that Obama's White House fast tracked a half billion taxpayer dollars to a company with deep ties to a big Obama donor even though a Bush-administration-era review of the loan application resulted in a vote against extending them a loan and even their accountants said they were a bad bet) and 5% of the time indicating that, yes, more investigation is needed into the deal, you know, the one where Obama flushed $500 billion of our money down the toilet in his buddies' mansion.

Not to worry, Mister Obama! The Times Union has your back and is instead focused on eviscerating the guy investigating your shading dealings!

Blame the messenger...media bias 101...brought to you by the Albany Times Union. So pathetic, yet so easily exposed nowadays.

Bad Then, Good Now!

In the leftist mind...

Obama's proposal to raise taxes on the rich now with the help of a GOP House, spend billions on shovel-ready infrastructure to make jobs, and cut spending to reduce his $1.5 trillion deficit is a brilliant idea, the best plan for an economic recovery...

but...

Obama was equally brilliant in not proposing a tax increase on the rich when he had unstoppable Congressional majorities, already spent billions on infrastructure while admitting later that there is no such thing as shovel-ready jobs and previously produced not one, but two jobless and recoveryless Recovery Summers, and increasing spending by 40% with the help of his unstoppable Democrat majorities, adding as much to the national debt in 3 years as was added under Bush in 8, and tripling the annual deficit since Bush left office with trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the CBO can see.

You figure it out...I can't.

No, See It's Different, But The Same

In the leftist mind...

The Bush administration 'pressured' our intelligence services to make erroneous conclusions about Iraq - even though multiple independent investigations explicitly found no evidence of any 'pressure...

but...

The Obama administration did not 'pressure' agencies to make erroneous conclusions in approving a half billion dollar loan to already shaky Solyndra solar, with ties to a major Obama fundraiser - even though direct evidence in the form of meeting records and emails explicitly found evidence that there was 'pressure' to OK a loan to a company that was a "bad investment".

You figure it out...I can't.

Just Stop

Why must the government "do something" about the economy?

Recall that the same set of people wailing that the government must "do something" believe that the economy will not recover on its own (as it has in the past) are the same ones that believe:

- that the rich are greedy bastards that just care about the bottom line

- that the greedy bastards will not do anything to help the economy recover

- that the greedy rich bastards have no interest in an economic recovery that will result in them making more money

You figure it out...I sure as hell can't understand the leftist mind.

For Crying Out Loud, Now They're Inventing Stuff To Blame Bush For!

This is getting ridiculous, thank God many people are starting to realize that.

Over at Say Anything there's a post about how Obama's lackeys are now trying to blame the disaster that is Solyndra solar, who blew through about a half billion, that's billion with a b, of taxpayer money before going belly up, after meeting over and over again with Obama people in the White House, on Bush.

No, really!

Why? Because their application originally came in and was reviewed during the Bush administration.

Only problem?

It was denied by the Bush administration before Obama's people reversed course on a terrible investment. Why it's almost like he and his cronies have no real world business experience or something.

The media should be destroying this. They won't.

Union Death Spiral?

Via RightWingNews:

Police confirm racial incidents at sugar plant

Police say union supporters have directed racial slurs and racist symbols at replacement workers and security personnel outside an American Crystal Sugar plant in North Dakota.

Traill County Sheriff Mike Crocker says there have been racial statements made to security people outside of the company's Hillsboro facility. He says he recently saw a monkey-like figure hanging from a noose attached to a large inflatable rat outside the plant. He says it was removed the next day...

Union representative Mark Froemke calls the behavior "totally unacceptable" and says the union will not tolerate racism.

Reminds me of the longshoremen union boss thug saying they'd never condone destroying company property and, gee, the company'd better stop screwing with the union if they wanted the destruction to stop...the destruction they had nothing to do with.

What A Weiner

Yesterday the chatter on the news was that the special election for Weiner's seat here in NY may be a referendum on Obama.

If the Democrat had won it would have been seen by the liberals as a referendum on Obama's performance, such as it is.

But a rookie Republican won. So we can probably figure that the left will be furiously spinning this as not a referendum on Obama, instead it will be about how much the Republican spent.

A Spectacle To Make Us Proud

I would like to take a moment to applaud the soaring spectacles that marked the 9-11 ten-year anniversary this past weekend. Who amongst us could refuse to be fired up and seething with national pride after the events?

The long, moving speeches attacking not only violent islamists, but really all muslims everywhere - even in America, calling for the destruction of their nations, the end of their peoples. When the President went on and on, for like 4 hours, right? about how it was so important for Americans, real Americans, to keep an eye on their muslim neighbors, surely we came together a bit more as a nation.

The parades through downtown DC, LA, and NYC of our military - truck-mounted missiles, line after line of soldiers shaking the buildings with their lockstep marching, tanks menacingly crawling their way down streets - truly inspired and our enemies must have quaked.

It's about time that dissidents were rounded up before the remembrance so they wouldn't interfere or be noted by the press. Well done!

When the ex-presidents came together to rekindle the passion against our foes, speaking eloquently, passionately, raising our spirits to not just remember, but avenge, AVENGE! our fallen, our martyrs to the free American spirit...well, who was unmoved by that?

And who could forget the football games marked by displays of naked nationalism? Never did we think 60,000 fans screaming 'Down with Islam!' could shake a mighty stadium so fiercely! Why the violent games were but a footnote to the inspirational displays of aggression in the pre-game speeches!


--


Truly, we are just like those that strive to bring us low.

Indeed, we strive in holy war.

Let Us Not Forget More Than We Already Have

Your Random Saturday

Time to go apple picking, yet?

Jonah Goldberg riff that bears repeating:

Perry's twang offends liberals who think everyone should talk like Barack Obama, a man of cosmopolitan and learned diction. Of course, Obama pronounces "corpsman," "corpse-man" -- as if our Navy were staffed with heroic zombies. One would think he'd have picked up the right punctuation during his travels to all 57 U.S. states.

Obama's gaffes earn no traction the way, say, the last president's "Bushisms" did. Nor do they cause bowel-stewing panic at MSNBC the way Sarah Palin's flavorful patois does.

And don't even get me started on Joe Biden. He could show up at a Russian state funeral in a Speedo and pith helmet, singing the Alvin and the Chipmunks B-sides, and NBC's Andrea Mitchell would lead with the disturbing reports that Sarah Palin quoted Biden inaccurately on her Twitter account.

Heh...he said "bowel-stewing panic". Sorry, Suzanne, I read Shakespeare, I swear!

Of Course A Snooty Editorial Will Be Run In 3 - 2 - 1...

I was going to say 'I live for moments like this', but that's really going too far. Still, I love rubbing the Times Union editors faces in their own smearings...but, like pets, they rarely learn from it.

This is an editorial from back on June 10:

Instead, Ms. Palin travels the country with even less credibility than three years ago. In Boston last week, she managed to mangle the lore of local Revolutionary War-era hero Paul Revere.

Actually, as people that live outside the insular world of liberal newsrooms know, she mangled nothing except some grammar in a hurried, unscripted response to a random question. She was historically correct.

Not the worst of gaffes, surely, not in a land where people are so disconnected from their own history.

As noted above, she was correct. I feel like telling the TU editors to stop hitting themselves with that crack about a gaffe and 'people disconnected from their own history' when it is they who have their history wrong. And why does "Not the worst of gaffes" merit an entire editorial?

Ms. Palin is back in the news now more for her stubborn refusal to acknowledge her mistake than for her spotty recollection of an early yet crucial chapter of the American story. She would rather rewrite history than admit misunderstanding it.

Stop hitting yourself! As noted above, Palin was accurate, refusing to admit that something that you were correct about was wrong is hardly a sin (or even a gaffe), and (stop hitting yourself!) smearing someone about their "spotty recollection" of history when you are the one that is wrong is pretty lame...and then when you would rather "rewrite history" than admit it in...well, nuff said.

The suggestion that the purpose of Paul Revere's ride through Boston and on to the rebel outposts in Lexington and Concord in 1775 was to send a stern, public warning to America's British oppressors is incorrect.

Good thing she didn't say that. But I guess it's easier to rewrite history to smear someone than admit someone you feel is vastly inferior to your own mental geniusness knows something you don't.

It's also disingenuous to suggest that Mr. Revere's assertion to the British upon his capture that a rebel mobilization was under way in the Massachusetts countryside matches up so neatly with history the way Ms. Palin has been telling and retelling it.

But it's more disingenuous to suggest that she said anything resembling what you're pretending she said, now isn't it? If only those damned historians weren't around to grudingly admit that she was right!

The real purpose of Mr. Revere's mission was to quietly warn rebel leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British soldiers intended to arrest them.

It's a good thing Sarah never said otherwise!

On Ms. Palin goes, on a seemingly never-ending disinformation tour.

On the Times Union goes, on a seemingly never-ending disinformation tour!

And now, ladies and gentlemen, the tour-de-force...or coup de grace...something like that:

Just imagine how she could further distort history if she were to make it -- as the Republican nominee for president next year.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

Madames et monsieurs, allow me to present the actual Democrat president supported by these very same writers:

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party.

See that? That's me grinning ear to ear. I may not live for this stuff, but I do get an awfully big kick out of it.

Tomorrow's editorial?

Obamaist History

THE ISSUE:

There's history, and then there's Barack Obama's version of it.

THE STAKES:

Where is he headed next, and how will he depict the great events there?

Barack Obama, pause. Rarely have two words required such a rhetorical break, for a punch line. A name cited in the ostensible context of a serious conversation about politics fits more readily into the intersection of current affairs and humor.

Instead, Mr. Obama travels the country with even less credibility than three years ago. In front of Congress this week, he managed to mangle the lore of Civil War-era hero Abraham Lincoln.

Not the worst of gaffes, surely, not in a land where people are so disconnected from their own history. Mr. Obama is back in the news now more for his stubborn refusal to acknowledge his mistakes than for his spotty recollection of an early yet crucial chapter of the American story. He would rather rewrite history than admit misunderstanding it.

The suggestion that Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party is incorrect. It's also disingenuous to suggest that Mr. Lincoln was even the first noted Republican.

The real founders of the Republican party were "Northern leaders such as Horace Greeley, Salmon Chase and Charles Sumner" and their first presidential candidate was not Lincoln, but John C. Fremont.

Given Mr. Obama's fascination with telling off the Republicans, though, he would do well to study up on their history instead of throwing out gaffes about it during "major" televised national addresses from the chambers of Congress.

Such reading or contemplation isn't for him or his followers, however. Mr. Obama's fans in the press went so far as to ignore his gaffes and continue to praise his intelligence.

On Mr. Obama goes, on a seemingly never-ending disinformation tour. Just imagine how he could further distort history if he were to make it -- as the President for the next four years.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

Well, They're Still Good For A Laugh

NORAH O'DONNELL: Scott, the President is facing an economy that just won't move forward or create jobs so this is a huge speech for him tonight. That's why his advisors wanted to make it before a joint session of Congress and, as we've first reported, this is going to be a plan with a price tag of over $400 billion. More than half of it will be tax cuts – tax cuts for every working American, tax cuts for every small business. Infrastructure spending, help for the unemployed to try and get them back to work.

~-~-~-~-~

(Briefing.com) Stock futures have pared losses after the resumption of selling pressure in the prior session and weakness abroad had initially undermined premarket trade. President Obama's jobs plan, which was unveiled last evening, didn't really do anything to improve sentiment.

~-~-~-~-~

BOB SCHIEFFER: I mean, this is not the cool, detached college professor that some people have accused Barack Obama of being.

~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~

BRIAN WILLIAMS: But second, since you've covered the White House, among other things, think of the burdens of office...

~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~

DAVID GREGORY: There's a big leadership moment now, the President is essentially saying government can do something here and must do something to try to instill some confidence, to assert leadership. That's what Americans are angry about, because they think it's just missing.

~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~

GREGORY: Well, I though this was a very forceful speech. I mean, the President understands the stakes here, the country could go into another recession right now. He made a very robust defense of government, that government has a role to play here.

~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~

STEPHANOPOULOS: And I think the White House is also believing that even if the President cannot convince the Congress to act, he can win the argument with the country to put tremendous pressure on the Congress and the President, you're hearing about a lot, in White House and President Obama's campaign circles these days is Harry Truman. That famous, Jake Tapper, that famous 1948 campaign when he ran against the do-nothing Congress.

~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~

STEPHANOPOULOS: And there are big differences, as you say, about how to create those jobs right now...Of course, we had the big stimulus plan at the beginning of his presidency, more than $800 billion was proposed.

~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~

STEPHANOPOULOS: The President and his team hoped that it would bring unemployment below 8%, but that didn't work.

~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~

NORAH O'DONNELL: So this is an extraordinarily bold plan by the President.

~-~-~-~-~

Unions Out Of Control

Gee, I can't imagine why people are so anti-union nowadays: Judge warns Wash. union to halt illegal tactics

Kindly note the 'i' word.

Union activists aren't backing off demands to work at a new Washington state grain terminal after hundreds of Longshore workers stormed the facility, overwhelmed guards and dumped grain...

Workers have been battling for the right to work at the new terminal in Longview. Protesters twice blocked the pathway of a train carrying grain to the terminal at the Port of Longview on Wednesday, and on Thursday hundreds of carried out the aggressive raid, police said...

Scott Mason, president of the ILWU Local 23 in Tacoma, said some of his members have joined in the Longview effort, but he doesn't believe they were involved in illegal activity. He blamed the company for provoking the response and warned that more activity could be coming.

'It's not our fault, we weren't involved, but if you don't cave we're going to do more.' Riiiiiiiight.

"The regard for the law is absent here," the judge said. "Somebody is going to be hurt seriously."

Six guards were trapped for a couple of hours after at least 500 Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha said. He initially referred to the guards as "hostages," but later retracted that after the guards clarified no one had threatened them.

"The guards absolutely could not get out," Duscha said. "They feared for their lives because of the size of the crowd and the hostility of the crowd."...

Most of the protesters returned to their union hall after cutting train brake lines and spilling grain from a car at the EGT terminal, Duscha said. They also pushed a private security vehicle into a ditch.

You know who I want to hire to work at my facility? Guys that destroy my equipment and threaten other workers. Riiiiiiight.

Not Classy

Grow up.

The Parable Of The Bicycle

Once upon a time, there was a young man that wanted a fancy new bicycle. His bicycle was OK, but nothing special. He had his eye on a nicer bicycle. He asked his parents to buy it for him, but they said 'no, he already had a bicycle that was just fine'.

All summer long he mowed lawns.

All fall long he raked leaves.

All winter long he shoveled driveways.

His wallet suitably fattened, he went to the bicycle shop to get that fancy bicycle. His smile fell when he saw that the bicycle was nowhere to be seen. All they had were bicycles like his, but in a few different colors. The other shops were the same.

When he asked what was going on, he was told that it wasn't fair that some people could have nicer bicycles than other people, just because they were 'rich', like him with his fat wallet, and could afford a nicer bicycle than the basic model. So they made it so no one could have a nicer bicycle. He returned home without a new bicycle, with extra money, but nothing he wanted to spend it on, and with the store owner not having sold a new bicycle.

The young man mowed not a blade of grass that summer.

He raked not a leaf that fall.

He shoveled not a snowflake that winter.

The Difference

Fox Sports cancels show after video mocks Asians

The difference between Fox and other networks, apparently, is that they would actually cancel a show after crap like this gets aired...other networks give the producers their own primetime show and Hollywood gives them awards.

Newtering Liberal Moderators (And Hopefully Bickering Candidates!)

Newt Gingrich Goes After Debate Moderator John Harris for Biased Questioning

JOHN HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, it sounds like we have a genuine philosophical disagreement. In Massachusetts, a mandate, almost no uninsured—in Texas, a more limited approach, about a quarter uninsured. Who’s got the better end of this argument?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I’m frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other...

HARRIS: We’ve got a choice between the individual mandate or not. Anyway, go ahead.

GINGRICH: You’d have, you would like to puff this up into some giant thing. The fact is, every person up here understands Obamacare is a disaster. It is a disaster procedurally. It was rammed through after they lost Teddy Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. It was written badly, it was never reconciled. It can’t be implemented. It is killing this economy.

And if this president had any concern for working Americans, he’d walk in Thursday night and ask us to repeal it because it’s a monstrosity. Every person up here agrees with that...

I for one, and I hope all of my friends up here, going to repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each other to protect Barack Obama who deserves to be defeated. And all of us are committed as a team, whoever the nominee is, we are all for defeating Barack Obama.

Violent Speech OK For Me, But Not For Thee

Gee, a double standard from Democrats/liberals/Obama...what a shocker.

Not.

JAKE TAPPER: And, lastly, Jay, in January, President Obama said, after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, "At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay all the ills of the world at people who think differently than we do, it's important to pause for a moment to make sure that we are talking to each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds." Did he mean that?

JAY CARNEY: Of course he did.

TAPPER: How does-- How do the comments by the teamster's president fit in with that?

CARNEY: Well, first of all, those weren't comments by the President. The President wasn't there. Secondly, and I think has been reported-

TAPPER: Comments by a union leader at an event that President Obama spoke at.

CARNEY: I understand that there is a ritual in Washington that somebody said something and then you link the associations and then everyone who has an association with him or her somehow has to avow or disavow. The President wasn't there. I mean, he wasn't on stage. He didn't speak for another twenty minutes. He didn't hear it. I really don't have any comment beyond that.

TAPPER: Okay, well, some of us covered the campaign and recall a time when someone made some harsh comments about then-Senator Obama while- during an introduction of a McCain rally and the Obama campaign was offended and expected an apology and Senator McCain came out and did so.

CARNEY: Well- Mr. Hoffa speaks for himself. He speaks for the labor movement, AFL-CIO. The President speaks for himself. I speak for the President. What the President was glad to do yesterday was have the opportunity to present his views on working Americans and the importance of taking measures to help working Americans to create jobs to grow the economy.

TAPPER: So, the President you're setting right now for the 2012 election is the candidates- the Republican candidates are the ones that we need to pay attention to and those who introduce them at rallies, their surrogates, you don't have to pay attention to anything they say.

CARNEY: Jake- I think I've said what I can say.

TAPPER: Is that the standard now?

CARNEY: You can report it as you like.

TAPPER: I'd rather not have to do this Washington Kabuki every time something happens, but if that's the standard, if that's the standard-

CARNEY: The standard is, we should focus on the actions we can take to grow the economy and create jobs, instead of focusing on Kabuki theater.

I sort of get the feeling that Jake Tapper thinks that by sometimes attacking from the left and sometimes from the right makes him 'balanced' or 'fair' or 'impartial' or 'unbiased'. All it does it make him look unprincipled, whether fair or not, that's just the impression I get. Still, he did a good job here, not only anticipating Obama's carnie's non-responsive 'he didn't say it, he wasn't even there, dood!', but also the fact that the carnie would ignore that slam and had prepared yet another slam tying Obama's hands in the future. Of course, dealing with Obama's carnival barker day in and day out clearly has given Tapper plenty of experience, allowing him to know what to expect from the freakshow.