Sunday, July 8, 2012

CNN’s Candy Crowley Grills Obama Advisor Over Anti-Romney Attacks Rated False!

Mediaite ^ | 7/8/12 | Josh Feldman

On CNN’s State of the Union today, Candy Crowley grilled Obama campaign advisor and former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on a recent attack ad released hitting Mitt Romney for outsourcing. Crowley ran the ad, pointing out that The Washington Post rated it false (“four Pinocchios”), and challenged Gibbs to explain why this is still being used as a line of attack against Romney.

RELATED: Romney Seeks Formal WaPo Retraction For Bain Capital Outsourcing Story (UPDATE)
Crowley also cited a more recent ad where the Obama campaign cites a Washington Post article on the claim that Romney outsourced jobs when he was at Bain Capital. For its part, the Post did examine the validity of that particular claim, but because of the conflict of interest, they did not officially rate the veracity of the newer ad.

When Gibbs tried to argue the point, Crowley countered by saying that Romney was not in charge of Bain at the time of said outsourcing, and thus his ties to it are not as direct as the ad otherwise suggests. Gibbs continued to push the outsourcing line of attack, and even brought up the recent revelation that Romney keeps money in a Swiss bank account. Crowley asked if Gibbs was implying Romney’s offshore money was illegal. Gibbs answered with, “We don’t know!” He called on Romney to release all of his tax returns for the past few years.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

My Doctor is a Flaming Pro-ObamaCare Liberal – Time to Change Doctors! ^ | 6/29/12 | Tom White

Physicians are supposed to be smart people. It takes a lot of time and study to reach the point that you can call yourself a Doctor. Not to mention the expense of Medical School.

You would at least think someone with all that time and money invested in their education would be a bit self protective of their livelihood, wouldn’t you?

Well, apparently, liberal ideology overrides self economic preservation among the Kool-Aid drinkers.

On Wednesday, the day before the ObamaCare decision came down I had an appointment with my doctor because I needed to refill the two prescriptions I take for my blood pressure.

First off, let me say – I hate going to see a doctor. Especially when I am not sick. And I have to be pretty darn sick to go to a doctor or hospital.
But my doctor refuses to refill a prescription without an expensive office visit. She has to pay back those student loans and make that BMW payment after all, right?
There has been some consideration of allowing pharmacies to sell some medications over the counter – no prescription needed – including Blood Pressure Medications.
If they do, I can promise you that unless a body part breaks or falls off, I will never go back to a doctor. I have always been a strong proponent of self medicating, a craft I learned in College in the early 1970′s.
So when my doctor walks in the examining room a full 30 minutes after my appointment time (which is fairly good for this practice) and after the usual “How have you been doing?” inquiry, I casually mentioned that I am hoping the Supreme Court will strike down the Health Care Law on Thursday.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama claims to have been outspent in 2008

Michelle Malkin ^ | 7/8/2012 | Doug Powers

This election year, Team Obama’s angle is to be “the little campaign that could” by portraying the Romney campaign as having all the cash and theirs as the one whose donations come in three dollars at a time from people who just want to have a cup of coffee with Middle Class Joe™. Hardly a day goes by without the Obama campaign putting out another “I’ll be outspent” email (the numbers suggest anything but) rallying supporters to dig deeper.

In order to play the underdog, Obama isn’t only claiming he’ll be outspent this year, but revising history to say he was also outspent in 2008:

“You know what, I might be worried about all this money being spent if it wasn’t for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, that last campaign I ran in 2008, I’ve been outspent before,” Obama said a campaign event in Pittsburgh on Friday afternoon.

As always, it depends on what your definition of “outspent” is:

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Despite Delays, Chair Lifts Coming To Public Pools

NPR ^ | July 6, 2012 | by Gigi Douban

Pools open to the public were supposed to have chair lifts installed for people with disabilities in time for this summer, but after a wave of protests, the federal order was delayed until January.
Still, some of the country's 300,000 or so pools at hotels, parks and gyms continue to fight the requirement.

Vestavia Hills pool near Birmingham, Ala., is one of thousands of pools that scrambled to get a chair lift installed by May.

At first glance, it looks like a lifeguard chair, only low to the ground. It's meant to help people with disabilities get in and out of the water.

"It goes really, really slow," says Candia Cole, Vestavia's pool supervisor."

May was the second installation deadline set by the U.S. Justice Department as part of a new provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. But then many owners of the affected pools complained. 

Each chair lift costs as much as $8,000. And most hotel pools don't have lifeguards to operate them.

The elderly, people with arthritis or someone who is missing a limb could benefit from the chair lift, but Cole says so far no one's asked to use it.

"If it's used or not, you know, it's here, so we got it — ready to go," she says. "Come on down! The water's fine!"

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

You Decide: Obama's Really Cool Train vs. Keystone's Real Cool Jobs! ^ | July 8, 2012 | Mark Baisley

Four California Democratic State Senators joined twelve Republican State Senators last Friday in voting against funding for a new high speed train and rail line. But that only brought the opposition vote to 43% in the lopsided Democratic California Senate.

California continues to set new records in accumulated debt for a single state, now in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Only the State of New York is able to top California and only in one area; debt per citizen.

There is one good argument for the California State Senate to have passed the bill approving $4.7 billion in spending. It obligates the other 49 states to send $3.2 billion of their money in matching federal funds for the project. The Obama Administration committed that level of funding in 2009 primarily from his economic stimulus project. This is in addition to the $2.3 billion dollars already paid into the rail project from Obama’s American Recovery and Investment Act.

It could seem like a prudent move by the California legislators, wrangling 25% of the $20 billion already committed to the 520 mile speedy choo-choo, except for one detail. The total estimated cost for the Los Angeles to San Francisco rail ride is expected to exceed $98 billion.

The go-ahead vote is a philosophical win for both Governor Moonbeam and President Obama. Just three months after taking office, President Obama delivered his Vision for High Speed Rail in America speech and Governor Jerry Brown has been pushing the California rail line primarily as a jobs program.

President Obama saw the nationwide network of 200+ MPH rail lines as his FDR moment. But as America’s multi-trillion-dollar debt controversy came to a head in 2011, Congress knocked down the President’s vision as irresponsible spending in the midst of an economic crisis. Commenting on the rejection of funding a national matrix of trains, Representative Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's railroad subcommittee spoke in support of shorter high-speed lines for commuting between Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C.

High-speed rail may indeed be a positive addition to commuter challenges, addressing traffic gridlock, air pollution and quality of life. But high-volume traffic infrastructure projects are necessarily pricey retrofits. They meet a demand for infrastructure that could not have been preplanned when the land was unoccupied and inexpensive. So the engineering is complex and requires a great deal of expertise and wisdom. Private enterprise has recently brought us luxury commuter buses and the like. But of course what we all want is our personal fleet of airborne motorcars.

But I would like to call attention to the comparison between the President’s high speed rail policy and his energy pipeline policy. Both the California high-speed train proposal and the Keystone XL Pipeline proposals were submitted before Barack Obama took office. Both projects will create tens of thousands of construction and operations jobs. Both will have an impact to the environment where they will be placed.

The differences include the fact that the California rail project would be the first 500 miles of the President’s vision of laying over 6,000 miles of track while Keystone will cover less than 1,700 miles in pipeline. Keystone is a private enterprise project with many companies looking forward to competing in its profitable operations. The California rail project is a public works operation with a single, government-subsidized operator.

The most glaring difference between these two proposals is that the Obama Administration rushed to approve billions of dollars for funding California high speed rail in its first year while squashing the Keystone project after a four-year environmental impact study. The Obama Administration will be submitting its second payment of $3.2 billion this month to California for high speed rail while ordering Keystone to begin a new environmental study for the entire path of the pipeline in response to the 88 mile rerouting plan that TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP recently submitted to keep distance from the Nebraska Sandhills.

The California rail project was envisioned by government bureaucrats who are unconcerned with sustainability. Their own State Senate Analysis reveals concerns about “limited information about the overall cost of the project, the cost of tickets, and train travel time versus air travel time.” The analysis also reports that “the project would result in widespread use of eminent domain in both rural and urban areas and the construction of large infrastructure that would disrupt communities.”

The Keystone XL project was envisioned to transport crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin to delivery points in Oklahoma and Texas. The proposed $7 billion project would create tens of thousands of American jobs and supplant a significant portion of crazy-country oil supplies with 830,000 barrels per day of friendly, Canadian crude.

In short, the primary motivator for building Keystone is profitable delivery of a local energy resource. The primary motivator for building the California bullet train is that it would be really cool.

Obama’s birth certificate forger has been found, now what GOP? ^ | July 8, 2012 | George Spelvin, staff writer

The mystery man alleged to have created President Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate has been found by Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigators who are calling him their “person of interest” as being the one who they are convinced pulled off the long form forgery according to ….. investigative report!

The Cold Case Posse’s next blockbuster press conference …. be SHOCKING according to lead sleuth Mike Zullo. This monumental revelation comes on the heels of the briefing paper given to Great Britain’s House of Lords by Lord Christopher Monckton declaring “Mr. Obama’s legitimacy is now materially in doubt.”

Calling Obama’s disqualification from office a “dislocation more severe than the fall of Nixon,” the author of the Hereditary Peers’ Briefing Paper is predicting that the sheer enormity of the Obama eligibility issue will drive it upward in America’s political agenda even in spite of being ignored by the media and both political parties!

Lord Monckton tells his heritage peers that considerable implications exist for Her Majesty’s government and the West because of the great financial uncertainty such an upheaval bodes. “Of central importance (is) to the United States who’s Constitution may have been flouted and circumvented in a material way.”

The twenty page briefing, published last month in London is a concise and very academic collection of what’s wrong with the three birth certificate documents released by the White House.

“Yet the copy birth certificate (pg. 12) has a clipping mask within the margins. This option can only occur by DELIBERATE MANIPULATION,” says the British Lord.

He expresses special unease by Barack Obama’s signing Executive Order 13489 on Jan. 21, 2009, that prevents disclosure of any of his records. “The sealing of the President’s records appears to have been carried out to an exceptional and costly degree.”…

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

ObamaCare's Now a Bigger Mess ^ | July 8, 2012 | Michael Tanner

If the new health care law wasn't enough of a mess before last week's Supreme Court decision, that ruling actually added another layer of cost, complexity and political contentiousness to the bill.
By striking down part of the law that required states to expand their Medicaid programs, the court tossed a very hot potato into the laps of state lawmakers everywhere.

ObamaCare required states to increase eligibility for Medicaid to 133 percent of the poverty line, or roughly $30,000 per year for a family of four. The expansion would also make childless single men (a notoriously high-cost group) eligible for Medicaid for the first time. In all, about 40 percent of all the people projected to gain coverage under ObamaCare would do so via Medicaid.

But this imposed real costs on states. For example, the Medicaid expansion would cost New Jersey taxpayers roughly $35 billion over 10 years, and New Yorkers as much as $52 billion.
Not surprisingly, many states balked — and now the high court has agreed: Congress can't strip all Medicaid funds from states that refuse the expansion, as the ObamaCare law threatened.
So what will state legislators do now?
If they agree to expand their Medicaid programs anyway, they'll be choosing to pile new costs on their state budgets and new taxes on their constituents.
And if a state doesn't expand its Medicaid program, most of those who would've been eligible for Medicaid will now become eligible for subsidies through ObamaCare's health-insurance exchanges. And those subsidies are paid in full by the feds.
Thus, New York, for example, would shift most of that $52 billion in new costs back to the federal government.
Of course, if states do shift those costs back to the feds, that will cause the federal cost of ObamaCare to skyrocket. If every state were to refuse to expand its Medicaid program, the feds would save roughly $130 billion in their share of Medicaid costs in 2014, but would have to pay $230 billion more in new exchange-based subsidies — for a net added cost of $100 billion. And that's just for the first year.
Remember, this is a law that already will cost as much as $2.7 trillion from 2014 to 2024, and will add more than $823 billion to the federal deficit — estimates that assumed state taxpayers would be picking up some Medicaid costs. How will Congress react if billions or perhaps trillions of dollars in new costs are added to the federal budget?
Here's another complicating factor: Most states have not yet set up an exchange. Many, especially ones with Republican governors or legislatures, may refuse altogether. By most estimates, as few as 15 states are likely to have exchanges in operation by the 2014 deadline.
ObamaCare gives the feds the authority to step in, setting up and operating an exchange in any state that doesn't set up its own — but there is reason to doubt that they have resources to do so in so many states.
Anyway, federal subsidies are available only through exchanges that the states set up. The feds can't offer subsidies through a federally run exchange.
Thus, if states neither expanded Medicaid nor set up exchanges, that would effectively block most of ObamaCare's new entitlement spending.
One last wrinkle: It is those subsidies that trigger the penalty under ObamaCare for employers who fail to provide workers with insurance. So states that don't set up exchanges could also escape the "employer mandate."
That is, ObamaCare requires employers with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a, tax. But that tax only kicks in if at least one employee qualifies for subsidies under the exchange. Since subsidies can only be provided via a state-authorized exchange, a state that refuses to set one up could end up blocking the employer mandate altogether. At the very least, expect some employers to sue on this point, leading to yet another Supreme Court challenge.
And if, as expected, ObamaCare drives up the cost of insurance, many employers could end up dropping their current health insurance. So the end result of all this could be even more uninsured than before the law passed.
In short, the Supreme Court's ruling not only guaranteed that ObamaCare will be an issue in this fall's federal elections; it dumped a mess in the laps of governors and state legislators, too.

GOP voter edge grows in Iowa!

Politico ^ | 7/6/12 | CHARLES MAHTESIAN

Republicans continue to hold an edge in Iowa voter registration, according to the latest figures from the secretary of state’s office.

From the Des Moines Register report:

619,452 Iowa voters are now registered Republican, compared to 598,074 Democrats. Both parties, however, are outnumbered by No Party voters, at 655,457.
Democrats held a lead in registrations for several years beginning in mid-2006, but fell behind Republicans earlier this spring.

In an e-mailed statement, Iowa Democratic Party spokesman Michael Hunt said additional Republican registrations in June were probably related to the unusually large number of contested GOP races in the June 5 primary election, rather than a new and specific preference for Republican policies over Democratic ones.
At the end of October 2008, just before Barack Obama won Iowa by 10 points, Democrats had an edge of 106,000 voters. In 2004, when George W. Bush won the state narrowly, the GOP had a 4.400 voter advantage. The trendline is positive for Iowa Republicans. Since April, in a key swing state that the most recent NBC News/Marist Poll reported was a presidential dead heat, the registration gap between the parties has grown from 4,000 voters to more than 21,000.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Europe's Green Energy Suicide (Why would we want to be like them?)

Frontier Center for Public Policy ^ | 06/05/2012 | Rael Jean Isaac

As austerity bites into European living standards, sparking revolt at the polls, "growth" has become the politician's mantra. But to be competitive, European countries require a secure, plentiful and competitively priced energy supply. Unless Europe radically rethinks its obsession with carbon dioxide emissions and the anti-fossil fuel energy policies that flow from it, growth is likely to remain elusive, says author Rael Jean Isaac in the Wall Street Journal.
Lawmakers across the continent would do well to take to heart the conclusion of the European Commission Energy Department's Energy Roadmap for 2050, which stated frankly that "there is a trade-off between climate change policies and competitiveness."
European Union law mandates that the 27 member countries on average cut their carbon dioxide emissions 20 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels.
The goal after that is to cut emissions by between 80 percent and 95 percent by 2050.
In May 2010, a study by the European Commission's energy department estimated the 20 percent cut would cost 48 billion euros ($66.3 billion) a year.
Individual nations' energy policies are pushing for further cuts in emissions, wreaking havoc on the economies that once dominated the continent.
* In the United Kingdom, a generous system of subsidies for renewable energy was found to have cost 10,000 jobs between 2009 and 2010 alone, and is estimated to raise the energy cost of vital industries (steel making, ceramics, paper, etc.) by 141 percent by 2020.
* Spain's experience with subsidizing renewables has been painful, with a 2009 study at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos finding that the subsidies had led to a loss of 110,500 jobs.
* Italy's subsidy system, which sets the price floor for wind energy at three times the market level, was found to sacrifice 6.9 industry jobs for every green job it created, according to a study at Italy's Instituto Bruno Leoni.
* Germany's Renewable Energy Feed-in Act of 2000 requires electric utilities to buy renewables from all producers at fixed, exorbitant rates and feed it into the power grid for 20 years, raising rates and undermining industrial competitiveness.
* Even France, which has remained relatively immune to energy problems because of its enormous nuclear energy capacity, is beginning to move away from that clean energy source that has served it so well.

The Obama Derecho: The damage from Obama will be lasting!

Washington Free Beacon ^ | July 6, 2012 | Matthew Continetti

Safe to say most Washingtonians had never heard of a "derecho" before June 29, when one of these speedy and destructive windstorms ploughed through the capital, leaving behind dead bodies and battered homes and more than a million households without power. Now the storm is over, and one can expect this obscure meteorological term to pass just as swiftly into everyday speech. Exotic, vaguely menacing, and evoking senseless, abrupt calamity, "derecho" is an especially apt description of America in the age of Obama.
Like the homeowners in Fairfax County, Va., picking up felled tree branches and putting in insurance claims, Americans across the country are still recovering from the Obama derecho that struck the nation from 2009 to 2010. The damage from that whirlwind has been ugly. The cost has been enormous. And another one may form at any moment.
A spectacular confluence of events swept Obama into office. Seven years of war, almost a year of recession, and seven weeks of financial crisis pulled down the incumbent president's approval rating on Election Day 2008 to an atrocious 25 percent. Obama's opponent was a war hero and a courageous statesman who nevertheless seemed rather anachronistic, not to mention confused at the bewildering and frightening economic situation.
Obama, on the other hand, had a smooth and graceful and likeable character that appealed to America's best hopes and dreams of racial and partisan conciliation. His running mate was a dolt, but a familiar one. They promised a new tone in Washington, sound economic management, lower health care premiums, cutting the federal deficit in half, and an end to the war in Iraq. This was the winning ticket, 53 percent to 46 percent.
The economy worsened after Obama's election. Unemployment spiked. The government took over the financial system, nationalized mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, consumed AIG, drew closer to buying GM and Chrysler, and drastically expanded the monetary base to prevent credit from dissolving further.
The economic and legal and political arrangements that had led to two decades of expansion were being re-written hastily and unthinkingly. A deluge of taxes and spending and regulations was let loose, with the stated aim of transforming the base of a system that had produced the most prosperous civilization in history. It turned out that when Obama spoke of putting America on "a new foundation," he meant it.
Unemployment was at 7.8 percent when Obama became president. It would rise to 10 percent in October 2009 and would not fall below 8 percent in over 30 months. Long-term unemployment became endemic. Participation in the work force fell to lows not seen in decades. Foreclosures mounted. Mortgages sank underwater. Obama's response was to maintain the policies of the Paulson-Geithner-Bernanke troika: bail out financials and autos while engaging in massive fiscal and monetary stimulus, and hope for the best. Publicize every "green shoot." Say, "Welcome to the recovery."
The change in governing style that the president had promised never seemed to materialize. Relations with the domestic opposition was an area in which the administration seemed eager to adopt a "with us or against us" mentality. The White House targeted dissenting individuals and organizations for public rebuke and media-enforced shame: Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Fox News Channel, the Chamber of Commerce, Charles and David Koch, Paul Ryan, Sheldon Adelson. The list grows with each day.
Even as Obama said he would listen to the Republicans, he let archliberals Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and David Obey write the stimulus bill, ironically called "the Recovery Act." They larded this legislation with handouts to public sector unions, the social services lobby, and green energy companies managed by Democratic contributors. They included tax rebates that history had shown to be ineffective at stimulating demand, and emergency aid to states that would delay but not resolve the governors' budget issues. The cost: $862 billion. Read the papers, and then try to say the stimulus "worked" while keeping a straight face.
It was with glassy-eyed seriousness that the president and his allies in Congress turned from the economic crisis to the ambitious spending and regulatory agenda that they had waited years to enact. Having passed the stimulus, Pelosi, Waxman, and Ed Markey brought to the floor of the House a monstrosity of an energy bill that would have imposed a cap-and-trade system of carbon regulation on the nation in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression. It cleared the House by seven votes before coal-state Democrats and Republicans in the Senate spared us, in this instance, from the greens.
Then in July 2009 Congress authorized Obama's first budget of $3.4 trillion, hilariously titled "A New Era of Responsibility."(PDF) Like all of the president's budgets, this one was easy to summarize: Taxes and spending and debt went up.
Obama and Congress carefully designed their "crown jewel," a health care overhaul that mandates insurance coverage for every American while turning health insurers into quasi-public utilities, raising taxes, and establishing manifold regulatory boards and bodies that will encroach ever more on institutional and personal liberties. The months spent debating Obamacare revealed the character of this president in an unforgettable way. He pushed for the legislation despite its unpopularity, despite his party losing elections in Virginia and New Jersey and Massachusetts, despite public protests and marches and threats to challenge the law's constitutionality. What could be seen in these glimpses of the real Obama was a single-mindedness of intent. Obamacare became law in March 2010.
The final surge was the Dodd-Frank "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act," which required more than 2,300 pages to delegate authority to new or established regulatory bodies that will issue more than 400 rulings on every sort of financial transaction. The president signed it into law in July 2010. The most obscure and arcane piece of legislation passed during the Obama derecho, Dodd-Frank may also come to be seen as the most harmful. It enshrines the Too Big To Fail bailout model that led to excessive leverage and risk-taking, and incentivizes consolidation in a banking sector already beset by cronyism and insider relationships between Wall Street and Washington.
This is the legislative horror-show that birthed the Xenomorph-like Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an already politicized agency that is shielded from democratic accountability even as it runs amok in credit markets. The regulatory capture and other perverse consequences of Dodd-Frank will become clear only in hindsight. However, we already do know that it did nothing to reform Fannie and Freddie or housing in general, and that it won't prevent the next financial crisis, which may soon be on us.
The clouds finally broke in November 2010 when Republicans had their best electoral performance in decades, and took the House of Representatives while gaining seats in the Senate and in governors' mansions and in statehouses. The worst seemed to be over. Obama was forced to maintain the tax rates that have been operative since 2001. The congressional Republicans have checked his additional plans.
The economy still suffers, however. The legacy of the derecho years remains. We will be picking up after Obama's debt and regulations and taxes for a long time to come. Even the current respite may turn out to be brief, for there are dark clouds on the horizon. Massive tax hikes on all levels of income, combined with crippling defense cuts, are set to take place on January 1, 2013. The health care mandate goes into effect the next year. The wind is picking up, and one can feel the first drops of rain. My advice: Take shelter.

Texas voter ID fight returning to federal court

Houston Chronicle ^ | July 8, 2012 | Richard S. Dunham and Elizabeth Traynor

........TexasAttorneyGeneralGregAbbott argues that the state has a responsibility to guard against election fraud, and that its new law is not subject to Justice Department review under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That provision, which has angered Southern conservatives for decades, requires jurisdictions with a historical pattern of discrimination to win federal "pre-clearance" from the JusticeDepartment or a federal court in Washington,D.C., before implementing changes in voting laws or political lines.
Southern states, led by Alabama, have argued that Section 5 is a violation of states' rights. Texas Republicans have charged that President BarackObama's Justice Department has manipulated its powers under the Voting Rights Act to benefit Democrats.
"Instead of attacking Texas for enforcing the law, the DepartmentofJustice should learn from the Lone Star State and focus its resources on protecting the integrity of the electoral system nationwide," said Republican U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, of Humble.
.....Thirty-one states require voters to show identification at the polls, including 15 that require photo ID. The U.S.SupremeCourt upheld the right of states to require identification cards in a 2008 Indiana case, but the JusticeDepartment has rebuffed laws in two states covered by the Voting Rights Act, Texas and South Carolina. New ID laws in Mississippi and Florida are awaiting Justice Department action.
.....The protracted legal battle over Texas' voter ID law resumes Monday at the federal courthouse in Washington. Adding to the heightened tension around the case is sharp conservative criticism of the Justice Department for using the data firm Catalist, a firm with strong Democratic ties, to analyze the impact of the ID law. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, joined with Poe last week in a letter to AttorneyGeneral Eric Holder calling the use of a Democratic firm "unacceptable" and a "conflict of interest.".....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...
.... Adding to the heightened tension around the case is sharp conservative criticism of the Justice Department for using the data firm Catalist, a firm with strong Democratic ties, to analyze the impact of the ID law. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, joined with Poe last week in a letter to AttorneyGeneral Eric Holder calling the use of a Democratic firm "unacceptable" and a "conflict of interest.".....Catalist --- Mission - "To provide progressive organizations with the data and services needed to better identify, understand, and communicate with the people they need to persuade and mobilize."

Catalist - Our Values - "Catalist is committed to using our talents and technology to nurture a vibrant, growing, progressive community, and to working with that community towards a more just, equitable and tolerant America."

Catalist offers your progressive organization low-cost, subscription-based access to a unique, comprehensive database of voting-age Americans. Combining standard demographic and high-quality political information with commercial data will allow you to get your message, ideas and requests to either large groups or targeted individuals with unprecedented precision and effectiveness. We also offer the software tools and in-house expertise your organization will need to use this data effectively.
Our team of innovators brings a unique mix of talents to our effort: we have helped local and national progressive organizations and campaigns advance their missions; and have experience designing and building data systems that support some of the world’s most recognized commercial and scientific enterprises.

Catalist is transforming the way progressive organizations communicate through flexible and affordable subscription access to comprehensive, high quality data. We provide all of the essential elements your progressive organization needs to build a data-driven program."

Catalist LIBERAL client list.....

Rock the Vote, AFL-CIO and Sierra Club testimonials for Catalist

Who run's Catalist? Press Release — February 15th, 2012 - Statement on Chairman of the Board of Catalist Stepping Down Replaced by Co-Chairs Bauman and Podhorzer.
(Washington, DC)—Catalist, the premier data provider to the progressive movement, today announced that after seven years, founding Chairman of the Board, Albert Dwoskin, President and CEO of A.J. Dwoskin & Associates, is stepping down from the Board to focus his attention on his many other business and philanthropic endeavors. New co-chairs of the Board, Patricia Bauman, President of the Bauman Foundation, and Mike Podhorzer, Political Director of the AFL-CIO, will replace Dwoskin. Bauman and Podhorzer are current Board members. Dwoskin has led the board since the inception of Catalist in 2006.

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law (4/28/08) "The Supreme Court ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000."..................

US Military Quote of the Decade . . .

"When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it became optional...

And now it's legal.

I'm getting out before Obama makes it mandatory."

-Gunny Sgt Harry Berres, USMC

Did We Just Bail-Out GM to the Tune of $80B Only to For Them to Move Most of the Company to Communist China?

Regardless of how much of your money Obama throws at them, Government Motors clearly has NO interest in working with his UAW pals over the long-run- and why should they?
GM executives were left to do pretty much as they please...

You can be forgiven for thinking that the serially-incompetent Obama Administration might have placed some restraints upon the $80B TARP bailout- but they didn't.

The result?
  • GM has been aggressively expanding not only sales networks but manufacturing and R-n-D work to the People's Republic of China, where Buick is their leading brand.
  • Since the TARP bailout of GM, almost 70% of the auto giant's production has been outside the United States
  • GM has already formed 11 joint-ventures in China
  • GM has built 11 final assembly plants and 4 powertrain plants in China
  • GM CEO/Chairman Daniel F Akerson told an audience in Shanghai last year 'We regard our 11 joint-ventures in China to be 11 keys to success... not just in China, but globally... Our commitment to working in China, with China, for China remains strong- and focused on the future.'

  • The Chinese skillfully exploit all foreign joint ventures in order to steal as much technology and know-how as possible while dangling vague promises of 'huge profits' from China's massive market of 1.3B people. To get in, GM promised them more state-of-the-art technology than any other competitor
  • CEO Akerson: 'We are now building-out the Advanced Technology Center (in China), which will bring our Research and Development that is centered largely in the United States -we're going to diversify that more into China- because we think this market is so critically important to the success of our company'
  • Akerson actually refers to China as 'the crown jewel in the GM universe'
  • The Cadillac brand recently sponsored a made-for-TV propaganda film on the Chinese Communist Party called 'The Birth of a Party' (!) in an apparent bid to become the black limo of choice for mafia-esque CPC officials.
  • Not only is GM abandoning the US wholesale, they are also doing all they can to help China invest in US energy resources and key industrial plants. Due to this, Communist, totalitarian China's AVIC now owns the famed WWII 'Arsenal of Democracy' weapons (and later automotive) plant in Saginaw, Michigan. Among other things, Saginaw's largest employer AVIC also exports anti-ship missiles to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Yet Trump -who screams about China ripping us off day-in-and-day-out while Detroit circles around the drain- is just a kook,
right Barry the Volt-dolt?

Even you die-hard Obammunist union guys ought to realize by know we're getting raped here... one of our largest corporations took our $80B, then turned-around and invested heavily with a daunting political and military adversary... with money borrowed from the frickin Chinese in the first place!

They're getting stronger every day... so why the hell are we helping them to conquer us all?

Carbon Credits


The should do it!

Offshore Drilling

Royal Wedding?

Just imagine...

More stimulus


Release the money or else!

Closing the gate too late!

Sorry, try again!

Look what you have now!

Manufacturing Activity



Touch Down

Quality Control

LePage calls IRS the 'new Gestapo' ^ | 4/8/12 | By Steve Mistler

LePage calls IRS the 'new Gestapo' The governor uses his radio address to attack President Obama's Affordable Care Act.

Gov. Paul LePage used his weekly radio address to blast President Obama's health care law and described the Internal Revenue Service as the "new Gestapo."

The IRS description was a reference to a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires Americans not insured by their employers or Medicaid to buy health insurance or pay an annual penalty when filing their tax returns. The provision, known more broadly as the individual mandate, was the subject of a multi-state lawsuit, but was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...