DIOGENES: In Search Of An Honest Politician!

Judge Malihi about to lower the boom on Barack?

2012-01-27T12:07:00.000-06:00

Coach is Right ^ | 1/27/2012 | Doug Book
At the beginning of yesterday’s hearing to determine the legal and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama for placement on the State of Georgia ballot in November, Judge Michael Malihi was said to have read “the last paragraph of [Obama] Attorney Michael Jablonski’s letter” to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.
And in the barely 2 hour proceedings which reviewed 3 lawsuits demanding Obama not appear on that ballot, this might have been the most significant “statement” made by the otherwise reserved Malihi. (1)
Like Obama, Jablonski was a no-show in the Georgia courtroom, leaving Obama represented by no counsel at the proceeding.
And although the judge adjourned the hearing with no decision, no ruling, in fact nothing more than a “thank you” to the participants, the last paragraph of Jablonski’s letter states “We await your taking the requested action and as we do, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26th.” (2)

Well Obama had been subpoenaed to appear in that courtroom. The subpoena had been specifically and without reservation upheld by Judge Malihi just 6 days earlier. So Obama was in obvious violation of the court’s order.

So maybe, just maybe Judge Malihi read the final words of Jablonski’s hyper arrogant, “we don’t believe your little state or your silly hearing are worth our time” letter for the purpose of reading into the record the fact that it was indeed the decision of Obama and his attorney to NOT attend and to NOT honor legal subpoenas.

And if that is the case, it means Malihi is clearing the decks...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Gingrich Surges To Lead In Poll

2012-01-26T18:40:00.000-06:00

Wall Street Journal ^ | 1-27-12 | Neil King
Newt Gingrich is outpacing Mitt Romney by a comfortable margin among Republican voters nationwide, but also is showing evidence of the vulnerabilities that could hurt the former House speaker in a general election, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

With the two rivals fighting it out in Florida after Mr. Gingrich's big South Carolina victory last week, the poll found Republicans nationwide favoring Mr. Gingrich 37% to 28% over Mr. Romney. GOP voters gave the former House speaker high marks for knowledge and experience, while they continued to harbor doubts about Mr. Romney's positions on the issues and his feel for average Americans. WSJ/NBC News Poll

Poll archive: Results of previous WSJ/NBC News polls

But the survey also finds that many Americans overall, notably political independents, hold negative feelings about Mr. Gingrich, and that Mr. Romney fares considerably better in a hypothetical matchup against Democratic President Barack Obama.

The poll captures on a larger stage much of the drama playing out now in Florida, where Mr. Romney is scrambling to stop Mr. Gingrich's resurgence by jabbing at his weaknesses. After trailing at the start of the week, Mr. Romney has moved to even or just ahead in more recent polls. Florida holds its primary next Tuesday.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Taxpayers Still In Hole $133 Bil From Gov't Bailouts

2012-01-26T18:35:00.002-06:00

IBD Editorials ^ | January 26, 2012
Financial Crisis: The bailouts of the last three years were a rousing success, Democrats like to say, a shining example of how government activism can save the economy. Really? A new government report suggests otherwise.
In 2010, the newspapers were full of reports of companies "paying back" loans under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
Over and over, Democratic politicians and left-leaning pundits suggested the money would not only be paid back, but that taxpayers might even profit from it. And even if the money could not be recovered, they said, a depression has been averted.
Well, here's some news for them, courtesy of the Associated Press: "U.S. taxpayers are still owed $132.9 billion that companies haven't repaid from the financial bailout, and some of that will never be recovered."
It may be even worse than that gloomy prognosis delivered to Congress on Thursday. The federal government has already written off $12 billion, and it may take years — if ever — to get the rest of the money owed by the 458 companies it "invested" in.
Take General Motors. The government break-even on its GM investment is $54 a share. GM closed Thursday at $24.72 a share. But in his State of the Union speech Wednesday, President Obama touted the success of the auto bailout, noting that GM is now "back on top as the world's No. 1 automaker."

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

He's Singing Again!

2012-01-26T06:54:00.000-06:00

My Promise

2012-01-26T06:52:00.002-06:00

Decline

2012-01-26T06:49:00.000-06:00

A Winner?

2012-01-26T06:43:00.000-06:00

Are We Related?

2012-01-26T06:40:00.002-06:00

He Had A Dream

2012-01-26T06:38:00.000-06:00

Unlike Obama, GOP Candidates Talk Seriously About Governing

2012-01-26T06:33:00.000-06:00

Townhall.com ^ | January 26, 2012 | Michael Barone
You know politicians are serious when they move from campaigning to governing. Something like that may be happening on the Republican campaign trail -- but, unfortunately, not at the Obama White House.

Campaigning clearly carried the day for Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, where he beat Mitt Romney by a 40 percent to 28 percent margin. It's generally agreed that Gingrich clinched the race when he reacted angrily to questions by Fox News's Juan Williams and CNN's John King.
Both times Gingrich got standing ovations. But not for how he'd govern. His platform can be summed up in a bumper sticker a Washington lawyer printed to buck up George H.W. Bush's hapless 1992 campaign: "Annoy the media -- vote for Bush." It was fun but didn't win many votes.
South Carolina Republicans got a charge out of imagining how Gingrich would rebuke Barack Obama in the Lincoln-Douglas debates he's been proposing. Except of course Obama would never agree to that format.
In the Monday debate at Tampa, Fla., Romney came back hard at Gingrich, saying that he had been ousted as speaker by his own party and that he had to resign "in disgrace." Gingrich complained afterward about the ban on applause and said he might not show up for later debates with a similar ban (although it is imposed in the fall debates).
What's important here is that Romney went after Gingrich for the way he governed. Gingrich cites, with a little exaggeration, significant things he achieved as speaker -- welfare reform, holding spending down, tax cuts.
But his quibbling with Romney over the timeline of his ouster as speaker misses the point. Many former colleagues, including Rick Santorum in the last two debates, have criticized him as an erratic and unsteady leader. These conservatives are troubled by the way he governed.
And Gingrich was not helped by the interchanges on his work for Freddie Mac, which along with Fannie Mae was heavily responsible for creating the housing bubble that dragged down the economy when it burst, or by the way he defended his advocacy of the Medicare prescription drug program, an expansion of entitlements opposed by many conservatives.
Romney's critics have hit the former governor for not doing much to advance the conservative cause.
They have something of a point. But Romney was able to cite a conservative fiscal record in Massachusetts despite an 85 percent Democratic legislature. And he might have pointed out that, if he is elected president, he will likely govern with a Republican Senate and Republican House.
Romney is now burdened with an economic platform that has rightly been called timid, with only small tax cuts. But the fiscal plans of other candidates are subject to attack as leading to enormous budget deficits when scored by neutral arbiters.
Romney's vaguer call for broadening the tax base and lowering tax rates, as in the bipartisan 1986 tax reform and as advocated by the Bowles-Simpson commission, is something that could actually happen. He hasn't been specific, but neither was Ronald Reagan in the election leading up to the 1986 law. Perhaps naively, I think Romney is thinking seriously about governing.
Barack Obama isn't, and that's one thing Republican candidates might want to bring up in the next debates. Obama rejected the Bowles-Simpson recommendations out of hand, and he seems untroubled that the Democratic-majority Senate hasn't produced a budget in 1,000 days.
That's contrary to the requirements of law, as is the administration's delay in sending up its own budget three years in a row.
But this is a president who flouts one law after another. He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess as required by the Constitution, and to one position when a law he signed requires Senate confirmation for the appointee to act.
He vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline on environmental grounds that the law says could not be considered. His policy on whether religious organizations can require employees to share their beliefs was swatted down by a 9-0 vote of the Supreme Court.
What we see is a president in pure campaign mode and cavalier about the rule of law, with policies -- higher taxes, environmental restrictions, more stimulus spending -- poorly suited to current needs.
The Republican candidates are struggling fiercely with each other. But a candidate who concentrates less on denunciation and more on governing could have an advantage in the fall over an incumbent who is doing more denouncing than governing himself.

MSNBC's Ed Schultz Speaks of His 'Boss' Obama, Then Appears at House Democrat Retreat

2012-01-26T06:31:00.000-06:00

newsbusters ^ | 1/25/2012 | By Tim Graham

Ed Schultz wasn’t kidding about his State of the Union affinities when he asserted on his radio show Tuesday that “I'll be in the Rotunda tonight, listening to the boss, rootin' for him, if you know what I mean.” He did not mean MSNBC boss Phil Griffin.

Schultz and CNN’s Paul Begala are participating Wednesday night in a House Democrat “Reignite the American Dream” retreat at the Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay Golf Resort, Spa & Marina in Cambridge, Maryland. Chris Ariens at TVNewser reported on Wednesday “We’re told MSNBC executives gave Schultz prior approval to participate. Schultz will also conduct an on-site interview with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi which will air on his show tomorrow night.”

John Stanton of Roll Call reported Wednesday evening's festivities are highlighted by an "American Voices Panel" that includes CNN and Newsweek contributor Paul Begala and "the leaders of several Democratic-leaning interest groups.” Meanwhile, “MSNBC host Ed Schultz will participate in a panel on Minority Whip Steny Hoyer's (Md.) ‘Make it in America’ plan." (certainly no media bias here)

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...

Newt is earning my support!

2012-01-25T16:36:00.000-06:00

Coach is Right ^ | 1/25/2012 | Ron Reale
I’m going to say something that makes me question my own ethical and moral foundation.

Eighty four ethics complaints were lodged against Newt Gingrich. 83 were dismissed, and the 84th, for which he paid a fine and admitted doing, the IRS later, (3 years later), ruled he wasn’t guilty of .

And, if he had been guilty of some personal ethical lapse, or had defied some red tape to get a good-for-America agenda passed, I don’t care. There, I Said It!

Did Newt Gingrich lead a conservative attack, help take Congress away from the Dems for the first time in 40 years, and work on numerous policies within that Congress to pass legislation that helped America?

Did Newt Gingrich pay the price for his success and his big mouth? What is it about Newt Gingrich that creates such a “love-hate” relationship with both his peers and the voters? Is that “love-hate” relationship directed more at the politician’s ideas and what he represents, or personally at Gingrich?
I ask, because recently, and not so recently, we have seen the same vitriol amassed and fired, in a not dissimilar fashion, at others. Ronald Reagan was an idiot, Sarah Palin, well, we could write books about the lies and distortions directed at her and her family.
Was Palin “Gingriched?” (Gingriched: to be subjected to a continual onslaught of political charges and attacks, that, although false, can lead to disarray in one’s ability to push their agenda’s, at which point resignation is inevitable, to return the focus to the business of the state or nation.)
Did Newt retire from Congress a wealthy man?
Did the policies he pushed in Congress...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Bulit to last

2012-01-25T16:21:00.002-06:00

Classified CIA Docs Found In Gitmo Prison Cells

2012-01-25T16:07:00.000-06:00

Classified CIA Docs Found In Gitmo Prison Cells
Judicalwatch ^ | 1/24/12 | Judicialwatch

Classified U.S. government information was found in the cells of high-value detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison that houses the world’s most dangerous terrorists, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

(Excerpt) Read more at judicialwatch.org ...

The Clogged Pipe

2012-01-25T06:54:00.000-06:00

Money

2012-01-25T06:52:00.003-06:00

PRICELESS

2012-01-25T06:49:00.002-06:00

What Culture of Dependency?

2012-01-25T06:47:00.000-06:00

Let It Rip!

2012-01-25T06:45:00.000-06:00

Reasonable Profit

2012-01-25T06:44:00.000-06:00

PERFECT!

2012-01-25T06:43:00.000-06:00

Passing Fancy

2012-01-25T06:41:00.002-06:00

REALITY

2012-01-25T06:39:00.002-06:00

So Dumb

2012-01-25T06:37:00.002-06:00

Vote Fraud

2012-01-25T06:34:00.000-06:00

My Advice

2012-01-25T06:33:00.000-06:00

Obama's focus on fairness, not on a foul record

2012-01-25T06:32:00.000-06:00

The Orange County Register ^ | 1/25/2012 | The Orange County Register Editorial Board
President Barack Obama's State of the Union message Tuesday predictably sounded like a campaign kickoff. In this election year he used the bully pulpit to advance political strategy, rather than give an even-handed accounting of where he has brought the nation.

We suspect voters preferred a more candid assessment such as, to paraphrase Jimmy Carter, "Are you better off than you were three years ago?" But stumping politicians know better than to ask questions that have embarrassing answers.

(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...

Meet Obama's Czars. There Are More Than You Know...and Why Are So Many Anti-Business

2012-01-25T06:26:00.000-06:00

The Right Perspective ^ | 1/6/2012 | Brian

Meet Obama's Czars. There Are More Than You Know...and Why Are So Many Anti-Business

It's been said that you can know a lot about a person by the company they keep. Two communists (there were three until Van Jones resigned), anti-2nd Amendment, anti-business, pro-blame America first, and the list goes on. This is the change people wanted? God help us.

Obama's "Czars" - who they are and their "qualifications"
Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke- Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov.of New Mexico . Pro Abortion and legal drug use.
AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley Homosexual. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and Special Status, including free health care for gays.
Auto recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery- Black radical anti business activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. Univ of Maryland Business School Dean teaches US business has caused world poverty. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
Border Czar: Alan Bersin- former failed superintendent of San Diego . Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno – to keep borders open to illegals
California Water Czar: David J. Hayes Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, “Progress Policy”. No training or experience in water management.
Car Czar: Ron Bloom- Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business. Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned. How did this happen?
Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross- Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars. Obama apologist to the world. Anti gun and pro abortion.
Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal- Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Vicious anti male feminist. Supported male castration.
Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske- devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle . Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports legalization of drugs..
Economic Czar: Paul Volcker -Head of Fed Reserve under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed. Obama appointed head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board which engineered the Obama economic disaster to US economy. Member of anti business “Progressive Policy” organization.
Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Brower- Political Radical -Former head of EPA -- known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership.
Faith-Based Czar: Joshua DuBois Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism. Anti gun ownership lobyist.
Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis- Chicago radical anti business environmentalist. Blames George Bush for “Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink.” No experience or training in water management. Former ACORN Board member
Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones- (since resigned). Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party who said Geo Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. Black activist with strong anti-white views. ONE DOWN-30 to go!
Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried –Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists. Believes America has caused the war on terrorism.
Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle. Former head of Medicare / Medicaid. Strong Health Care Rationing proponent. She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
Information Czar: Vivek Kundra- born in New Delhi, India. Controls all public information, including labels and news releases. Monitors all private Internet emails.
International Climate Czar: Todd Stern- Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for Global warming.
Intelligence Czar: Dennis Blair- Ret Navy. Stopped US guided missile program as “provocative”. Chair of ultra liberal “Council on Foreign Relations” which blames American organizations for regional wars.
Mideast Peace Czar: George Mitchell Fmr. Sen from Maine- Left wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into “2 or 3 “ smaller more manageable plots”. Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual.
Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg- Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY. Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs.
Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein- Liberal activist judge-believes free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”. Rules against personal freedoms many times –like private gun ownership.
Science Czar: John Holdren- Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training.
Stimulus Accountability Czar: Earl Devaney- spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico . Author of statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico.
Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration- Native of Democratic Republic of Congo. Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations.
TARP Czar: Herb Allison- Fannie May CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of people to lose their life savings.
Terrorism Czar: John Brennan- Anti CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs. Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military..
Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra- No Technology training. Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist. Supports Obama Health care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov. health care plan.
Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.- Puerto Rican. Anti American activist and leftist group member in Latin America . Millionaire “slum lord” of the Bronx , NY. Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from “sweetheart” deals with labor unions. Wants higher taxes to pay for minority housing and health care.
Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter- Leftist. Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America . No Other “policy”
WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore- Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith.

Related articles •Report: Obama's Czars Are Seizing More Power (gunnyg.wordpress.com) •Obama proposes new group of czars as part of American Jobs Act (via PUMABydesign001′s Blog) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)

Obama's Green Robber Barons

2012-01-25T06:18:00.000-06:00

Townhall.com ^ | January 25, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

Had enough of fat cat Barack Obama, his jet-setting wife and his multi-millionaire Chicago consigliere/real-estate mogul Valerie Jarrett attacking the "rich"? Well, brace yourselves. You'll be hearing much more from the White House about the "wealthy few" who aren't paying their "fair share" as Obama's re-election campaign doubles down on class-war demagoguery.

As usual, there's always a set of immunity charms for the privileged friends and family of the ruling class. When it comes to all the Green Robber Barons who've reaped an obscenely unfair share of billions of tax dollars from the Obama administration, the envy trumpeteers will be quieter than a nest of mute church mice.

Obama's State of the Union address defiantly pitched a new round of clean energy spending orgies to help the "middle class." But how have the serial bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies of several federally subsidized solar companies -- all under Obama's watch -- helped anyone but an upper-crust elite of eco-crats and their lobbyists and consultants?

Bankrupt Solyndra, billionaire George Kaiser. In the wake of the half-billion-dollar Solyndra stimulus bust, company officials revealed plans to hand out hefty bonuses totaling $500,000. Months before the politically connected solar energy manufacturer went belly up, it was doling out bonus payments of between $40,000 and $60,000 to several executives. Last week, a local CBS News crew caught employees at the Silicon Valley headquarters trashing solar panel glass tubes worth an estimated $10 million.

The now-abandoned Taj Mahal complex cost ordinary Americans more than $733 million. But billionaire Democratic donor and frequent White House guest George Kaiser, whose nonprofit foundation was Solyndra's biggest investor, is still sitting pretty. He and the other private investors of Solyndra will recoup their losses ahead of taxpayers. And while they blast their GOP opponents, double-standard Democrats will remain AWOL on the glaring tax-avoidance strategies of the wealthy Kaiser Family Foundation.

Bankrupt Beacon Power, fat Democratic coffers. This green energy storage plant filed for bankruptcy last fall after a $43 million injection of Obama Department of Energy loan guarantees. Federal election record filings show that CEO William Capp contributed to the 2008 Obama campaign, as well as several left-wing New England Democratic candidates. Beacon Power lobbyist Steve Wolfe was a former aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Beacon sought bankruptcy shelter two days after the White House responded to fiscal watchdogs' demands for a review of the DOE's shoddy loan monitoring programs.
Bankrupt SpectraWatt, red-faced Goldman Sachs. A solar cell company based in New York, SpectraWatt went belly up last August despite a half-million-dollar federal stimulus boost and lucrative backing from politically connected Goldman Sachs -- whose ties reach deep into the Obama Treasury Department, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, White House National Economic Council and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. itself. The eco-failure was dumped in a fire sale for less than $5 million.
Teetering Nevada Geothermal, cheerleading Harry Reid. Despite $150 million in federal DOE and Treasury Department subsidies -- not to mention personal lobbying by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- this alternative energy project is on the brink of failure. A Deloitte and Touche audit grimly concludes that the company "has incurred net losses over the past several years, has an accumulated deficit of $44.0 million and an anticipated inability to retire its long-term liabilities." According to CBS News, the company's latest SEC filings warn of multiple defaults.
My scouring of White House visitor logs shows nine visits from another Green Robber Baron, Illinois-based Exelon's CEO John Rowe, who met with the president and former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel multiple times. As Forbes magazine reported: The clean energy company "has very deep ties to the Obama Administration. Frank M. Clark, who runs ComEd, helped advise Obama before he ran for president and is one of Obama's largest fundraisers. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, worked as a consultant to Exelon. Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, helped create Exelon" -- where he raked in more than $16 million over two years.

Obama’s Decision to Kill the Keystone Pipeline A Huge Windfall for Buffett

2012-01-24T20:09:00.000-06:00

C4P and Human Events ^ | 1/24/2012 | John Hayward and Doug Brady
When President Obama, who is normally a great proponent of “infrastructure” projects, made his bizarre decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline project, I wondered if he might have been induced to create those thousands of American jobs if the oil could be moved by his beloved high-speed rail.

As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety. Fortunately, as Newt Gingrich pointed out during the Monday night Republican debate in Florida, the oil is on private land, so Obama can’t shut production down.

(Excerpt) Read more at conservatives4palin.com ...

Public Radio's 'Marketplace' Whitewashes Alinsky; 'Quite a Conservative Guy'

2012-01-24T20:07:00.002-06:00

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/01/24/public-radios-marketplace-whitewashes-alinsky-quite-conservative-guy ^
American Public Media (formerly American Public Radio) says that its "Marketplace" program "focuses on the latest business news both nationally and internationally, the global economy, and wider events linked to the financial markets."
Okay. One would expect, given the track record of leftist and communist movements and causes in ruining economies and creating unspeakable human misery, that if "Marketplace" were to do a segment on, say, Saul Alinsky, that it might note his antagonism towards free-market capitalism, and how damaging his "Rules for Radicals" recommendations have been in practice. Instead, those listening to yesterday's Alinsky segment got nothing but pap and misdirection orchestrated by a far-left labor prof:
Alinsky was really a conservative. Who knew? Certainly not Alinsky.
I guess you could say he was a Bible-thumper, but in quite a weird way. After all, he admired "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer." As to whether Alinsky was aligned with the bedrock conservative principle that individuals and families should be left to make their own decisions about their lives, he wasn't: "The greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself."

What the White House Really Knew About the Stimulus

2012-01-24T20:04:00.002-06:00

IBD Editorials ^ | January 24, 2012

Blame Game: News reports about a December 2008 White House stimulus memo claim it proves the stimulus was too small. What it really does is expose how Obama has misled the country about his economic policies.
The memo, written by Larry Summers — President Obama's top economic adviser at the time — shortly after the election, outlined the thinking of his economic team about the best size and make-up of a stimulus package.
News reports about the memo, which came to light this week, have focused on Summers' warnings that the government could spend only so much money in any given year, suggesting that this is why the stimulus was too small to be truly effective.
The Financial Times, for example, claimed "Obama advisers rejected giant stimulus," and the Atlantic said that "history might remember this memo as the document that killed any hope of a trillion dollars stimulus."
This is simply wrong.
First, the stimulus package that Obama signed was almost identical to Summers' "more ambitious option." That proposed $300 billion in new spending (the actual amount was $343 billion); $390 billion in tax cuts (actual amount was $264 billion, not including the subsequent payroll tax cut); and $200 billion in grants to states (actual amount, $180 billion).
Nor was the stimulus smaller than economists wanted at the time. Remember that in addition to the $787 billion stimulus (the CBO later upped it to $830 billion), there were other bills passed by the Democratic Congress that, as liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein notes, added $500 billion to the stimulus pile.
That's awfully close to what even hard-core liberals advocated. Robert Reich, for example, wanted a $1.2 trillion two-year stimulus; Paul Krugman said it should be $600 billion in one year; Jamie Galbraith, $900 billion.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Gingrich says NBC should have allowed clapping [NYT headline that Gingrich will boycott is UNTRUE]

2012-01-24T16:10:00.000-06:00

yahoo ^ | January 24, 2012 | Dylan Stableford - The Cutline
"I wish in retrospect I'd protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it's wrong," Gingrich told "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday. "And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they've done in every debate.

"We will serve notice on future debates, we're not going to allow that to happen," Gingrich added. "That's wrong. Media doesn't control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to. It's almost silly."

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

Hundreds of DEADBEAT Capitol Hill Staffers Didn't Pay Taxes in 2010!

2012-01-24T15:46:00.000-06:00

FoxNews.com ^ | 1/24/12 | FoxNews.com
As Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich parse the details of their individual tax returns, hundreds of Capitol Hill employees are taking taxpayer dollars to the bank without paying their share.

Internal Revenue Service data show that 3 percent of Senate staffers and more than 4 percent of House staffers owed taxes in 2010, adding up to about $10.6 million in unpaid taxes. More than 98,000 civilian federal employees were delinquent on their taxes in 2010, adding up to more than $1 billion in taxes owed, according to the IRS.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, last year introduced a bill to require federal employees to be fired if they are "seriously delinquent" on their taxes. Seriously delinquent is defined as outstanding federal tax debt for which a public lien has been filed. The bill was passed by committee in June but is still waiting for a vote from the full House.

"If you work for the federal government and you don't pay your taxes, you should be fired," Chaffetz said in a statement provided to FoxNews.com. "It is totally unacceptable to live on the federal payroll and not pay your taxes. The Obama administration has totally ignored this cheating. Congress should pass my bill and hold federal workers accountable."

Under current law, only IRS employees can be fired for not paying their federal income taxes, according to Chaffetz's office.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Allen West says Newt best suited to communicate conservatism to the black community!

2012-01-24T15:43:00.000-06:00

The Right Scoop, Fox News Video ^ | 01-24-12 | posted TheRightScoop
Allen West, in discussing what the Republican Party needs to do to get black voters into the Republican party, was asked which presidential candidate has the conservative principles to help turn the tide of high unemployment in the black community.

He was quick to point out that despite those on the left accusing Newt of race-baiting, he believes that Newt is the one who is diagnosing the problem well and is trying to open a dialogue with the black community by offering to speak before the NAACP.

(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...

If Newt’s Divorce is Fair Game, So is Obama’s Cocaine Use!

2012-01-24T15:34:00.000-06:00

Townhall ^ | 1-24-11 | Staff
CNN’s John King was correct to bring up Newt Gingrich’s divorce and his ex-wife’s comments about “open marriage.” Discussions of the candidates personal life are fair game to allow the public to fully understand the character of those that want to run in this next Presidential election.

But Barack Obama’s prior Cocaine use MUST also be viewed as fair game for press inquiries, and the press should begin probing now. The public has not had this character flaw fully vetted due to the “Main Stream Media” fawning over Obama in the last election cycle. It is now time to have the press ask the following questions of Barack Obama so voters can fully understand this candidates background and character.

- When was the last time Obama used cocaine and over what span of time did he use this illegal drug?

- How often did he use it.

- Did he purchase it or sell it and thereby commit a felony?

- What other illegal substances has he used, when, and for what span of time? When was the last time?

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...

FEARING NEWT GINGRICH

2012-01-24T15:11:00.000-06:00

The Daily Caller ^ | 01/23/12 | Matt Barber

What do establishment Republicans and liberal Democrats have in common? They’ve long labored under a shared misconception: conservative candidates are unelectable.

In 1980, conventional wisdom held that Ronald Reagan didn’t stand a chance against Jimmy Carter. The GOP leadership, the mainstream media and liberal politicos alike lined up against the Gipper in an attempt to derail his presidential campaign.

Rush Limbaugh recently addressed this phenomenon on his radio program: “Gerald Ford said that Ronald Reagan was unelectable. George H.W. Bush said that Ronald Reagan was unelectable. The entire Republican establishment thought Ronald Reagan was unelectable because they were governed and informed by the Goldwater landslide defeat. That’s what they think will happen to every conservative.”
That’s what they think will happen to Newt Gingrich.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Obama’s Very Dishonest Campaign Ad Regarding Energy

2012-01-24T15:06:00.000-06:00

Watts Up with That ^ | 1/24/2012 | David Middleton
A new ad from President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign that touts his energy and ethics record began airing in Virginia this week even as Republican blasted him over a decision to reject a permit for a proposed oil pipeline from Canada.

The 30-second spot (see below) makes a case that Obama’s policies have promoted clean energy jobs and reduced the nation’s dependence on foreign oil while enduring unfounded attacks funded by wealthy energy industry officials.

This campaign ad is nothing but a collection of falsehoods..... [snip...
....Falsehood #3: The ad implies that President Obama somehow played a role in the increase in US domestic oil production over the last few years… That is beyond ridiculous! The plays and prospects from which the production growth was derived were worked up, leased, drilled and plumbed-up for production over the last decade or more. The effects of Obama’s disastrous anti-drilling policies won’t show up in production data for quite some time.....[long..]

(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...

2012-01-24T14:57:00.001-06:00

Great predictions, by some of the "So called experts." at the time....

****************************************************************************

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances."

-- Dr. Lee DeForest, "Father of Radio&Grandfather of Television."
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives."

- - Admiral William Leahy , US Atomic Bomb Project
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."

-- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923
"Computers in the future may weigh more than 1.5 tons."

-- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."-- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."--The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
"But what is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

-- Bill Gates, 1981
This 'telephone'has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us,"-- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"

-- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible,"

-- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper," --Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."
"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make,"

-- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out,"

-- Decca Recording Co. Rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this,"

- - Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads.
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy," -- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." - - Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University , 1929.
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value," -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre , France .
"Everything that can be invented has been invented,"

-- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899.

"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." -- Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University
"I don't know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself." -- the head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, forcing the inventor to found Xerox.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."

-- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon,"-- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

"When Barack Obama is elected in 2008,

unemployment will drop below 8%, the budget

will be balanced, and we'll all live in prosperity,"

-- Al Gore, blowhard and Nobel Prize genius - 2008

Seriously, President Obama? ("Buffett Rule": Buffett profits from Keystone rejection, workers lose)

2012-01-24T12:14:00.000-06:00

Pundit & Pundette ^ | 1/24/2012 | Pundit & Pundette
Not since his minions handed out lab coats at a White House Obamacare rally has Barack Obama committed such a lame or electorate-insulting act of political theater. But it's just part of the class war he must wage if he's to get re-elected. Code word: fairness. Politico:

Billionaire Warren Buffett's longtime secretary will be joining first lady Michelle Obama in her box at tonight's State of the Union, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer announced on Twitter. Debbie Bosanek, who has worked for Buffett for nearly two decades, has become a symbol in the White House's fight over the tax code and economic fairness. Obama is expected to renew his push for the so-called "Buffett rule" that would bring investment taxation levels into line with income taxation levels — and ensure that upper income earners pay rates as high as middle-class Americans.
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett," President Obama said in September, when he unveiled his American Jobs Act proposal. It's a trope that Buffett himself has repeated, as he has campaigned for higher taxes on investment income.

It's common practice for presidents to invite guests to sit next to the first spouse that fit with the theme of their address — and Bosanek's presence is a big hint that the address will tilt heavily towards economic issues of fairness.
Wasn't there something else about Warren Buffet in the news today? Oh yeah, here it is: Obama buddy Warren Buffet to benefit from Keystone XL pipeline cancellation
And who will not benefit? Hard-working Americans. Listen to or read what this truck driver and former Obama supporter had to say yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show:

The tipping point for me was Newt Gingrich, what he said a few days ago, something I would have really been very angry with and almost insulted by. He said that Obama's decision regarding this pipeline was stunningly stupid. And I could not disagree with that, because this pipeline, in addition to the fact that it's automatically gonna bring a lot of jobs, without a doubt help the economy, it's gonna have an immediate impact on the price of things. Impact on the price of gas, which in my industry is enormous. People don't understand how the price of fuel affects everything that they pay for, from food to any good that they get. But the bottom line is that this man, because of what I can clearly see as politics to support these environmental people, he is willing to destroy this country, destroy the economy, it's a no-brainer in terms of getting away from dependence on the foreigners, foreign oil. And I just cannot in good conscience continue to hurt my family in the amount that I'm paying for fuel, groceries, and everything else. I cannot in good conscience support this man when this is obviously political because it would have helped this country and the economy. So I want to say that I'm finally seeing the light and I'm done with him.

I find it almost physically impossible to watch the demagogue in action so I'll stick with Netflix reruns tonight. (Things are really heating up between Andy and Helen Crump -- how will it end?)

A Thousand Days of Failure.Senate Democrats have refused to propose a budget for three years!

2012-01-24T12:06:00.000-06:00

Pajamas Media ^ | 1/24/2012 | Roger Morse
One thousand days is long enough to get a lot done. An elephant needs only about two-thirds of that time for a full-term pregnancy. In the past 1,000 days, the Egyptians figured out how to overthrow their government. The Libyans figured out how to overthrow their dictator. Theoretically, man could travel to Mars and back in that time.
However, the U.S. Senate has failed to figure out how to propose and pass a budget for this country as required by law in that time.
It is only fitting that President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address on January 24, which will mark 1,000 days since the Senate last complied with the budget law.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA) is quite clear that passing a budget is not optional. It states, “On or before April 15 of each year, the Congress shall complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year.”
Additionally, the CBA requires details that go far beyond the many little budget deals that kick the can down the road every few weeks or months. Among the details:
The concurrent [budget] resolution shall set forth appropriate levels for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year and for at least each of the 4 ensuing fiscal years for the following -
(1) totals of new budget authority and outlays;
(2) total Federal revenues and the amount, if any, by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be increased or decreased by bills and resolutions to be reported by the appropriate committees;
(3) the surplus or deficit in the budget;
(4) new budget authority and outlays for each major functional category, based on allocations of the total levels set forth pursuant to paragraph (1);
(5) the public debt;
The CBA also requires a report to be filed with the budget resolution.
The report accompanying the [budget] resolution shall include -
(A) a comparison of the levels of total new budget authority, total outlays, total revenues, and the surplus or deficit for each fiscal year set forth in the resolution with those requested in the budget submitted by the President;
(B) with respect to each major functional category, an estimate of total new budget authority and total outlays, with the estimates divided between discretionary and mandatory amounts;
(C) the economic assumptions that underlie each of the matters set forth in the resolution and any alternative economic assumptions and objectives the committee considered;
(D) information, data, and comparisons indicating the manner in which, and the basis on which, the committee determined each of the matters set forth in the resolution;
(E) the estimated levels of tax expenditures (the tax expenditures budget) by major items and functional categories for the President’s budget and in the resolution; and
(F) [committee] allocations described in section 633(a) of this title.
And yet, the Senate has ignored the law for 1,000 days. The problem is that there is no penalty in this law for breaking it.
This is a failure of leadership. Former House Democrat Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stated that enacting a budget is “the most basic responsibility of governing.”
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said recently, “There is no excuse. I would have been impeached as governor.” He went on to ask his Senate colleagues if anyone had a plan. Sadly, he could not find any senator within the Democrat Party willing to put forth a detailed budget.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gives a standard answer that Republicans have obstructed the ability of the Senate to act. He apparently is hoping that Americans forget the fact that Democrats had a 60-vote majority until 2011 and could have passed anything over the objections of Senate Republicans.
The Senate Democrats voted against the budget resolutions passed by the House. The Senate Democrats voted against President Obama’s budget. What they have refused to do for 1,000 days is propose any budget of their own.
The real reason for not producing a budget is that the Senate Democrats are terrified of letting the public know what they stand for. They want to only agree to a compromise that Republicans agree to also. That way the blame can be shared for the pain that will result from only spending money that we can afford.
Granted, assembling a budget for consideration by the Senate is complex. Senators created a special standing committee to perform the job. The Senate Budget Committee spends about $6 million each year in order to get the job done. The problem is that they have produced no work product in almost 3 years. Does anyone know why we are paying for this committee to do no work?
Sen. Manchin pointed out that the federal government is currently spending more than $1 trillion more than we are collecting this year in revenues. Why not start balancing the budget by eliminating the committee that is not doing the job taxpayers are paying for?
If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) refuse to follow the law and produce a budget this year, the least they could do is eliminate the Senate Budget Committee and stop wasting taxpayer money.

Do you hear the mainstream media saying anything about this? Could you imagine if Bush was president and he didn’t come up with a budget for 1,000 days? The world would have ended in the mainstream media and people like Obama and Clinton would have been screaming about it for months. Yet what do you hear now? Nothing. Hypocritical rats.

Newt Gingrich: ‘Nobody In The Elite Media Wants To Cover’ Obama’s Alinsky Roots

2012-01-24T06:56:00.002-06:00

Breitbart.com ^ | January 23rd, 2012 | Newt Gingrich
"But the objective fact is [Obama] believes in a very radical vision of America's future that is fundamentally different from probably 80 percent of this country. And nobody in the elite media has ever wanted to dig into it, ever wanted--why would he veto the Keystone pipeline? Why would he kill jobs in America? Why would he have a National Labor Relations Board attack Boeing? Because it fits the model of Alinsky radicalism."

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.tv ...

Tea Party rising for Newt Gingrich

2012-01-24T06:42:00.000-06:00

The Washington Times ^ | January 23, 2012 | Dr. Milton R. Wolf
So long as the Washington establishment continues to underestimate - and even misunderstand - the Tea Party, insiders will continue to be pummeled by the grass-roots giant that no longer sleeps. Democrats dismissed the Tea Party in 2010 and took a historic shellacking. Republicans would be wise to learn from their mistake.
First, let’s remind ourselves, the Tea Party is not a formal political party or even an advocacy group, but rather a state of mind. If you believe in constitutional fidelity, limited government and the free market, then you don’t need your name on some official roster or even to have attended a rally to be part of the Tea Party movement. You simply need to use your vote and your effort to demand that our leaders embrace these principles as well.

The Tea Party plays chess, not checkers. The nascent movement demonstrated remarkable maturity in 2010, for example, by resisting the temptation to form a third party. Memories still loom large of the 2000 presidential race when Green Party candidate Ralph Nader took just enough votes from Democrat Al Gore in Florida to tip the balance and award the White House to Republican George W. Bush. So the Tea Party wisely exercises a disciplined loyalty, if not to the Republican Party, then at least to the William F. Buckley Jr. rule of supporting the most conservative candidate who can be elected.

In truth, the Tea Party has been far more loyal to the GOP than the GOP has been to the Tea Party. While the establishment abandoned and even openly sabotaged Tea Party Senate candidates such as Nevada’s Sharron Angle, the Tea Party still delivered a historic victory to Republicans that captured the House....

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Sanctury City

2012-01-24T06:33:00.000-06:00

Re-elect me!

2012-01-24T06:31:00.002-06:00

Outlaw Islam

2012-01-24T06:28:00.002-06:00

Forever Hold His Peace...

2012-01-24T06:27:00.000-06:00

Blockage

2012-01-24T06:25:00.002-06:00

Fantasyland

2012-01-24T06:23:00.002-06:00

Half Done

2012-01-24T06:21:00.002-06:00

Help Me

2012-01-24T06:17:00.002-06:00

Where's Captain Obama?

2012-01-24T06:15:00.002-06:00

Fantasyland

2012-01-24T06:13:00.002-06:00

Vulture Capitaists

2012-01-24T06:12:00.002-06:00

Food Stamps

2012-01-24T06:10:00.000-06:00

Obama reveals who he really is -- and this picture isn't pretty!

2012-01-24T06:02:00.000-06:00

Fox News ^ | 1/23/2012 | By Michael Goodwin
By rejecting the Keystone XL oil pipeline, President Obama did more than just pander to environmentalists. He shredded attempts by his handlers to cast him as a pragmatic and reasonable man who can appeal to independent voters.

Instead, he stands naked as an ideologue willing to sacrifice workers on the altar of special-interest politics.

Thousands of jobs were cast aside with no more thought than yesterday’s socks. Demolished, too, is the promised commitment to energy independence.
The $7 billion pipeline would carry Canadian oil to Gulf Coast ports. Despite three years of study by the State Department, Obama tried to put off the decision until after the election.
But Canada offered to change the route to avoid an aquifer in Nebraska, and unions demanded to know whether he would approve a permit, so Republicans put a 60-day deadline in December’s payroll-tax legislation.

Now we have undeniable proof of the president’s priorities. The man who insisted that “making sure jobs are available is the first thing I think about when I wake up every morning” was just reading empty words from a TelePrompter.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Why Romney may be no better for the economy than Obama

2012-01-24T06:00:00.000-06:00

Foxnews.com ^ | 1/23/2012 | Peter Morici
Mitt Romney lost South Carolina after failing to convince voters he has the character and platform to turn the country around.

Voters in the Palmetto State, burdened by shuttered factories, high unemployment and vanished dreams, keenly see the problems facing our country: Large corporations, sitting on $2 trillion in ready cash, invest too little in American jobs, and instead move production and R&D to Asia as quickly as they can.
President Obama has further tilted the playing field in favor of Asian venues by tolerating higher tariffs, more discrimination in government procurement and increased manipulation of currency values by China and others. The current occupant of the White House has raised the cost of doing business in America by shutting down oil production, raising health care costs and tolerating the monopolization of commercial banking by Wall Street. Mr. Romney promises to aggressively develop domestic oil and stand up to China, but will encounter fierce opposition from Democrats in Congress on energy issues, and from them and House Speaker Boehner on China. In addition, Wall Street bankers are among Mr. Romney’s largest campaign contributors, and they don’t want China confronted.
*snip*
Mr. Romney promises to aggressively develop domestic oil and stand up to China, but will encounter fierce opposition from Democrats in Congress on energy issues, and from them and House Speaker Boehner on China. In addition, Wall Street bankers are among Mr. Romney’s largest campaign contributors, and they don’t want China confronted.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Obama is a ‘vulture socialist’!

2012-01-23T15:50:00.002-06:00

WND ^ | 1/23/12 | Roger Hedgecock

Bernie Madoff is in jail for life for using other people’s money under false pretenses in a Ponzi scheme that fooled some of America’s most sophisticated investors. This is an example of fraud, not capitalism.

Raj Rajaratnam is in jail for 11 years for insider trading of securities of Galleon Group, the hedge fund he founded. This is an example of violating a law passed by Congress restricting capitalism. If Raj had been a member of Congress, which exempted itself from that insider trading law, he would not be in jail today.
Steve Jobs will be remembered forever as the American who envisioned products that didn’t exist and the world later found indispensable. His was American capitalism in the Edison, Bell, and Ford tradition. American innovative capitalism has changed the world. Jobs made Apple Inc., which he famously started at home, into a worldwide giant with a net worth greater than the country of Greece.
Mitt Romney and the investors in his private equity firm made a boatload of money buying risky failing companies and turning them around to profitability. Many companies failed anyway. Others became household names. Many employees lost jobs they were going to lose anyway; many more Americans found jobs in Staples, Domino’s Pizza, Brookstone, Sports Authority, etc.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Cowardly Indiana Dems Run-Away Again, Right-to-Work Bill On Hold!

2012-01-23T15:47:00.000-06:00

Capitol Confidential ^ | 1/23/2012 | Jack Spencer

INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana's march toward becoming the nation's 23rd right-to-work state is once again in limbo.

House Democrats here refused to return to the Indiana House floor Tuesday evening, abandoning a deal that was supposed to lead to a vote on right-to-work legislation by the end of this week.
Indiana Senate Bill 269 and House Bill 1001 would make it a Class A misdemeanor to require an individual to join or remain in a union or to pay any dues, fees or other charges to that same labor organization.
After the Democrats refused to come back from a recess in today's session, Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, reportedly told the Democrats that if they're not in the House at 9 a.m. Wednesday, they will each face $1,000 daily fines until they show up.
Indiana has a part-time Legislature whose session ends in mid-March. Republicans control the Indiana Senate by a 37-13 margin and the House by a 60-40 margin. The only way the Democrats can stop the right-to-work bill from passing is to not show up for work and deny the House a required 67-member quorum.
That's what the Democrats did last year for five weeks. Subsequent polling, however, showed that the tactic was very unpopular with Indiana voters.
Two weeks ago, the Democrats boycotted House sessions for three days in an attempt to prevent the legislation from moving forward. They showed up last week and cut a deal with the Republicans that would allow the Democrats to debate the bill in session earlier today (Jan. 17) and then allow a vote to be taken on the bill by the end of the week.
Tuesday's House session was expected to include a vote on a referendum proposal and 43 other amendments to the bill. Basically, the referendum would have allowed Indiana voters to decide the issue in November.
On Tuesday afternoon the House session started with a quorum of 93 members. A few relatively innocuous pieces of legislation moved and then there was a recess called so that both sides could caucus over the planned debate on House Bill 1001.
A few hours later it became apparent that the Democrats weren't coming back.
House Democratic Leader B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, claimed that he’d learned of a Republican trick that was planned to derail the vote on the referendum. Meanwhile, Bosma accused the Democrats of breaking their word.

Why Newt Could Win

2012-01-23T15:30:00.000-06:00

National Review Online ^ | January 23, 2012 | Michael Walsh
Yes, I know: it’s amazing to even think about it, when you look back just a few months to the wreck of the SS Squarepants (as some idiot dubbed it). But when even Jonathan Alter is explaining to his MSNBC hostess why it’s time to start taking Mr. Newt seriously, you know the ground has shifted and, unlike the Costa Concordia, the ship is starting to right itself.

So let me second Mark’s notion that the man who has resurrected Newt is the same guy who put him in the ground in Iowa, Mitt Romney. In fact, all the anti-Romneys, past and present — Newt twice, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann — arose to fill the felt need of the conservative electorate that the once-rejected former Massachusetts governor was highly unlikely to have improved with age, and that just because it was “his turn” was no reason to hand him the nomination à la Bob Dole and John McCain.
The problem with Romney, it seems to me, is that not only is he the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, politically ill-wind speaking, he has no natural constituency — and that’s what’s keeping him mired in the mid-twenties while the not-Romneys (including the outlier, Ron Paul) scoop up the rest.
Just before the New Hampshire primary, some idiot tweeted, “If Romney is held below 40 percent, he’s toast; if below 30 percent, he’s meat.” As it turned out, he got 39.4 percent — lightly buttered toast. Because if quasi-favorite-son Mitt couldn’t convincingly sweep away the riff-raff in his own back yard, it bode poorly for South Carolina. (By contrast, Gingrich got 40.45 percent of the vote in S.C., and he was still splitting the anti-Mitt vote with Paul and Santorum.)
So if Romney’s homies didn’t turn out for him in the Granite State, where are they going to turn out? All the organization and money in the world can’t force folks to vote for you if they don’t want to, and now that Newt’s inoculated himself against further Super PAC attack ads and renegade ex-wives, it’s unlikely that Romney can carpet-bomb him as effectively as he did in Iowa. Newt’s now like one of those nuked Japanese film creatures that not only was not destroyed but is back, bigger, badder and more cheesed off than ever.
To whom does Romney really appeal? Who are his broken-glass voters? Yes, he seems like a pleasant enough fellow and no one doubts his business or organizational acumen. But he’s hurt himself badly in the debates — and not just, as the new conventional wisdom has it, in S.C., but right from the start. The stammering, the stuttering, the evasiveness, the boilerplate bromides, the rude and annoying way he turns to stare at his fellow debaters when they’re speaking — he’s an empathy-repelling Stepford Candidate; wind him up and he gives pretty much the same performance every time. Whereas Gingrich alone finally figured out that if it’s red meat that’s wanted, you might as well rip chunks of it from the flesh of the unctuous moderators and throw it right at the ravenous studio audience.
None of the usual political allegiances work for Romney. Unlike Santorum, he has no appeal to the working-class white ethnics, many of them Catholic, who used to be Democrats but since have found a home in the GOP. The absurd defense offered by his apologists that venture capitalism is the essence of the American Dream is not likely to sway voters for whom paychecks are earned with sweat, not favorable treatment in the tax code after you’ve made your pile.
Unlike Perry, Romney has no natural appeal in the South — where, no matter what the Constitution says about “no religious test” for office, his Mormonism is still the subject of much sotto voce muttering. His Michigan upbringing notwithstanding, he lacks Bachmann’s midwestern appeal (as well as her accent). Unlike Paul, he’s not a single-issue crazy, who can fire up his troops by waving the Federal Reserve’s bloody shirt. And while the Pennsylvania-born Gingrich is as regionally unanchored as Romney — Newt’s a northerner comfortable among southerners — somehow the former speaker has pulled it off, probably because he doesn’t try to fake it.
Lacking a geographic or ethnic base, he was always going to have a tough time. He’s a national candidate who hasn’t made it to the general election yet. And then, of course, he had the bad luck to be associated with Bain Capital, a tailor-made propaganda issue for the Democrats that Gingrich defensively pre-empted in response to Romney’s scorched-earth Iowa campaign against him.
So is Romney toast or meat? Neither, yet. He’s probably 50–50 to set Gingrich back in Florida, momentum or no momentum — a silly Washington press corps construct that assumes politics is like football, when in fact it’s more like baseball, a sport in which there is no momentum. The pitcher — or in this case, the state-by-state electorate — changes constantly. Every day is square one.
But Gingrich doesn’t have to win in Florida. All he has to do is hang on until the Super Tuesday donnybrook on March 6, where despite his Virginia blunder, the terrain favors him. Gingrich is a Civil War buff and he may finally have realized that while he doesn’t yet command the men and materiel that Grant had, being General Meade, the man who defeated Lee at Gettysburg and thus changed the course of the war, will be good enough for now.
So if Gingrich wins the nomination, can he beat Obama? The smart money says no, but you’d expect a poll-obsessed, racing-form consulting collection of media eunuchs to say that. (Heads have been rotating on MSNBC the past 48 hours as the metrosexual chatterers try to unearth the secret of Gingrich’s belligerent appeal, unable to wrap their minds around the fact that it’s the very belligerence that’s the appeal.)
The dumb money, however, says . . . maybe. In a fight between a puncher and boxer, between Grant and Lee, the boxer may sing and dance for round after round, but if the puncher ever catches up to him, it’s lights out. Gingrich’s genius in going after the media is that he knows they are Obama’s Praetorian Guard and shock troops rolled into one. If he can take them out — by making them look as ridiculous as they really are and thus stripping them of their pompous, bogus “morality” — he can sweep up the midwest, roll up the South, and very likely force the surrender in the same place Grant cornered Lee: the swing state of Virginia.
Or he could just blow up again and go down for the third time.

The Blockage

2012-01-23T06:55:00.002-06:00

Obama to appear at hearing; attorney Orly Taitz says it will be '100 times bigger than Watergate'

2012-01-22T15:22:00.000-06:00

Columbus Ledger-Enquirer ^ | 1-21-12 | Chuck Williams
A Georgia judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta Thursday for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.

Orly Taitz, the California attorney who brought the legal challenge to Obama's name on the March Georgia presidential primary ballot, says this is what she has been working for over the last three years.

"This will be 100 times bigger than Watergate," she said Saturday morning, referring to the scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon in 1974.

"There are high ranking judges and federal officials who are involved in this cover up. The ramifications of this trial will be enormous."

Taitz said she expects the president's legal team to fight his appearance in the Georgia court.
"But he's in a catch-22," she said. "If he is appealing this decision, then he looks guilty. The whole nation understands this man is a fraud."

Taitz has led the "Birther" movement that insists Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. She is also familiar to Georgia courts.

(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...

Why do Catholics have to get married in church?

2012-01-22T15:14:00.000-06:00

by Deacon Greg Kandra

That’s the gist of this piece by writer Cara McDonough, who raises a question that’s increasingly common these days. I get several calls a year from people who ask if I can do a wedding for them in a catering hall or on a beach. (Usually, it’s after a priest has turned them down; deacons, of course, are always the last resort.)

McDonough writes:

My sister-in-law is getting married this spring. I’ve tried on my bridesmaid dress, jotted down the date of her New York City bachelorette party and also, intrigued, watched her struggle as she strives to book a priest.
Like me, she was raised Catholic and is marrying one. And, like my husband — her brother — and I did when we got married in 2005, she and her fiancé are trying to make this a Catholic affair.
Trying. Because there are rules.
I remember sitting in the chapel of the Newman Center at the University of Chapel Hill with many other couples during a Pre-Cana conference prior to our own wedding, listening to the priest talk about the importance of our forthcoming unions.
And then, unexpectedly, but with true passion: “You can’t get married outside.” He paused, then repeated, “You just can’t.”
My sister-in-law, however, wants to do just that. Plenty of people do.
Why can’t a Catholic ceremony take place outside? I turned to the wisdom of the internet to help me sort this out, and found many reasons, both casual and, seemingly, from on high.
Catholics marrying non-Catholics can get a special dispensation allowing marriage someplace other than a Catholic church. But if you’re both Catholic, the church wedding is important. The answer, as I’ve interpreted it, mostly concerns the fact that the church is the true “house of God,” and marriage, being a sacrament, should be celebrated there.
The sites Catholic Education Resource Center and Catholic Answers , as well as many others, approach the subject with articles and online forums.
But really, the best explanation I’ve heard was from that priest. “You just can’t.”

But wait, there’s more:

My sister-in-law, however, wants to get married outside due to a combination of factors, including the fact that the reception location is not close to a church and is a lovely place to hold a wedding.
Not to mention that the diocese where she and her fiancé will wed is not one either belongs to, and is rumored to be strict, so may not have allowed them to hold the ceremony in a church there anyway.
She’s been looking for a priest who would agree to marry them at their reception site — outside the house of God, within the house of nature — for several months. She’s had priests outright refuse, refer her elsewhere and one memorable man of God who agreed to do it but only for a considerable sum of money.

Well. As my sainted father used to say: “If you want to belong to the club, you have to follow the rules.” And that’s one way of looking at this. But it helps to look at marriage as what it truly is: a sacrament. It is the tradition of the church that – with some rare and specific exceptions — sacraments are received in a church. Which means, among other things, the ritual takes place in the presence of Jesus Christ, in the Blessed Sacrament. It unfolds before the people of God, the community of faith. And, for marriage, it is witnessed by a minister of the church, a priest or deacon.
But there is also this: being married in a church says something. It says: “We take this seriously, and are making this commitment in a sacred space, in the presence of God, before His people, forever.” It says: “We are beginning our life together in a way that signifies to the world our commitment to each other, and our commitment to our faith, and we let’s face it: know we’re going to need all the graces we can get.”
It also says: “This is something more than just a party.”
Another take, and a very good one, from Busted Halo:

The key element to remember about the Catholic understanding of marriage is that it is a public act of the church which recognizes the lifelong and exclusive commitment of the bride and groom to each other. The bride and groom may say “I do” to the wedding vows, but the presence of the church community is meant to support the couple throughout their married life together. All those present are presumed to be saying to the couple “We do.” We do witness, confirm, and support your marriage.
The popular notion that a wedding is primarily the business of the bride and groom is romantic, but not true in the sacramental sense. The church, and all the people of God who witness the marriage, have a stake in the sacrament of marriage. It makes a difference to the community of believers and to society that marriages are freely entered and strong. As Pope John Paul II said, “The future of humanity passes by way of the family.” (Familiaris Consortio, #86)
What’s all this got to do with having a wedding in God’s beautiful outdoors?
Since sacraments belong to the entire church—not just the bride and groom—they are normally celebrated in the place that the church gathers. This unites the couple with the universal church throughout the ages and puts the ceremony in the common gathering place where other sacred celebrations occur.
Although as Christians we believe that God is everywhere, we also have set aside special places for community worship—church buildings. It makes sense that baptized Christians would celebrate the vocational sacrament of marriage in the building where the community usually worships and which is dedicated to such special sacred commitments.

Read the rest.

Girl Scout Troops Banned from Va. (Catholic) Church

2012-01-22T15:07:00.000-06:00

nbc washington ^ | January 21, 2012

Girl Scouts will no longer be able to meet at a local church because of a connection with Planned Parenthood.

Several Girl Scout troops in Chantilly, Virginia have been banned from meeting at a local Catholic church and a neighboring school.

St. Timothy Catholic Church says that scouts won’t be allowed to meet or wear their uniforms on church property. The edict also applies to the adjacent St. Timothy School, which enrolls students from preschool to eighth grade.

The decision stems from what the church calls an affiliation with Planned Parenthood by the Girl Scouts parent organization, The World Association of Girl Guides.

A spokesman for the diocese released a statement that says in part:

“Every pastor in the diocese has the responsibility to determine how best to use their parish facilities, consider the requests of outside groups, and reconcile such requests with the needs and mission of their parish community.”

The regional girl scouts council says it will make sure the troops affected can find a new home.

Our Wish

2012-01-22T14:48:00.000-06:00

A big earthquake with the strength of 8.1 on the Richter scale hit the middle east.
Two million Muslims died and over a million were injured. The country is totally ruined and the government doesn't know where to start with providing help to rebuild.
The rest of the world is in shock.
The Aussie's are sending troops to help.
Saudi Arabia is sending oil.
Latin American countries are sending supplies.
New Zealand is sending sheep, cattle and food crops.
The Asian continents are sending labour to assist in rebuilding infrastructure.
Canada is sending medical teams and supplies.

America, not to be outdone, are sending two million replacement Muslims.

God Bless America !

This Article Explains Why Apple Makes iPhones In China And Why The U.S. Is Screwed!

2012-01-22T08:10:00.000-06:00

Business Insider ^ | 01/22/12 | Henry Blodget

The manufacturing processes of Apple and other electronics companies have come into sharp focus of late, with the revelation of more details about what life is like for the Chinese workers who make the world's gadgets.

When one reads about these working conditions--12-16 hour shifts, pay of ~$1 per hour or less, dormitories with 15 beds in 12x12 rooms--the obvious assumption is that it's all about money:

Greedy manufacturers want to make bigger profits, so they make their products in places with labor practices that would be illegal in America.

And money is certainly part of it.

But an amazing new article by Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher of the New York Times reveals that there's a lot more to it than that.

The article illustrates just how big a challenge the U.S. faces in trying stop the "hollowing out" process that has sent middle-class jobs overseas--and, with it, the extreme inequality that has developed in recent years.

The reason Apple makes iPhones and iPads in China, the article shows, is not just about money.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Michelle Obama's Mirror

2012-01-21T15:50:00.000-06:00

Buy Won, Get Won Free!

Yesterday was a pretty slow news day, unless you’re an R-word. In which case you were probably interested to hear that Rick Perry dropped out of the race, Rick Santorum won Iowa and Newt is apparently a swinger! Who knew?

Then on to the R-word debate, where the first question was to Newt, asking for his comment on his ex-wife’s allegation that he was, indeed, a swinger. So boys, what did you expect from CNN? Softballs?

Regardless of it’s velocity, Newt hit that one out of the park: “I’m tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.”

“Yeah, Houston, this is the RNC: we have a situation here.”

The latest debate left many to ponder, as Charles Hurt put it: “why Republicans keep allowing the various Communist, leftist and otherwise anti-American TV networks to host GOP debates.”

The Ms.NBC smug ones

Lady Diane at State Dinner last summer

Meanwhile, out of the fray, Big Guy was wrapping up a big day of official business in Florida (battleground state) by announcing his new executive order to increase tourism. I didn’t think you could actually do that: order an increase in tourism I mean. Butt it should make a lot of people happy. Especially those who haven’t been able to afford a vacation in years now.

Channeling his inner Mickey, Big Guy and TOTUS announce new executive order requiring tourists to visit the Magic Kingdom. BKeyser via Blonde Gator

Then BO flew into New York for a series of intimate events. Two at the Daniel restaurant (pre-dinner for the not quite so rich, dinner for the very rich), followed by one at the Apollo Theatre (where the top seats went for $25,000) and one at Spike Lee’s swanky Upper East Side brownstone for $30,800.
So, lest there be any confusion about our number Won jobs priority going forward: it’s fundraising. Because being president is Job One! And it’s going to take a lot of money to ensure we achieve our top priority. Yesterday helped; we hauled down a cool $3.1 million - not bad for a day’s “work.”
Butt we have a lot more work to do, as our billion dollar man campaign appears to be falling a bit short. In order to achieve our objective, Big Guy and Lady M need to raise $87 million every month between now and the end of the campaign trail.

We’ll be rollin’ out our secret weapon again: Lady M!

So it’s going to be a very exciting year!
Our newest fundraising plans include a new marketing campaign geared towards the filthy rich, because, well, that’s where the money is. I’m calling this campaign our Buy Won, Get Won Free program:

Eager to widen its donor base, the Obama campaign is using its team of top fundraisers and donors to distribute marketing materials to thousands of potential top-dollar donors across the nation. Those who donate $5,000 …will gain a stream of perks large and small, sources said.
The benefits could include free entry to campaign fundraisers featuring the President, access to strategy sessions at headquarters, and pizza parties at the homes of supporters to watch upcoming voting contests to pick the Republican candidate challenging Obama for the White House in 2012.

Wow! Our fundraising guys are real professionals. And speaking of professionals, did you hear BO crooning to his fans at the Apollo? He practiced for a month with his Hollywood voice coach in order to squeeze these 5 notes out somewhere in key:

'Those guys didn't think I would do it. I told you I was gonna do it.'

So next time Big Guy tells us he’s going to do something, maybe we should all pay a little more attention.

Obama to Draw an Economic Line in State of Union (activist role for gov, more taxes and spending)

2012-01-21T15:43:00.000-06:00

NY Times ^ | Jan 21, 2012 | JACKIE CALMES
Obama will use his election-year State of the Union address on Tuesday to define an activist role for government in promoting a prosperous and equitable society, hoping to draw a stark contrast between the parties in a time of deep economic uncertainty.

Obama will call for changing the corporate and individual income-tax codes so the wealthy pay more, both to finance government investments and to alleviate the rise in income inequality in recent years.

Republican presidential candidates have countered that government should get out of the way.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

Administration Warm to Pipeline Compromise Proposal: “Building a pipeline that doesn’t connect to any source of oil seems like a ‘win-win’ solution!"

2012-01-21T15:37:00.001-06:00

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 21 Jan 2012 | John Semmens

A proposal to build the US portion of the Keystone Pipeline without connecting it to the Canadian source of oil may be a compromise the Obama Administration can approve.

“The President’s main objection has always been his opposition to increasing the supply of fossil fuels in America,” said Press Secretary Jay Carney. “Building a pipeline that doesn’t connect to any source of oil seems like a ‘win-win’ solution!

We could create thousands of jobs constructing the pipeline without incurring the negative environmental impacts of actually transporting, refining, and distributing any gasoline.”

Obama’s Presidential Campaign adviser, David Axelrod, characterized the construction of a line that will never be used as “a stroke of genius. The unions will be happy because they’ll get jobs building the line. The environmentalists will be happy because the President will still block the cross-border connection to Canadian oil sources. This compromise means that votes from both these groups will go solidly for the President.”

Axelrod brushed aside criticism that building a pipeline that won’t be used might be seen as wasteful. “The pipeline will be built underground,” he pointed out. “It won’t be seen as anything. Meanwhile, union workers will be bringing home paychecks. The economy will be stimulated. The President will be reelected.”

The compromise was likened to the strategy used by FDR in winning three reelection campaigns. “The spend, spend, spend and elect, elect, elect approach is a tried and true strategy,” Axelrod bragged. “Voters aren’t thinking about the long term. They’re not competent to assess the functionality of how taxes are spent. As long as the President can be seen to be doing something, anything, he’ll win them over.”

(okay...you can clean off the screen and stop laughing now!)

5 Ways Obama Chooses American Decline

2012-01-21T15:30:00.000-06:00

By chris future

With Obama ruling against the Keystone XL pipeline, he continues a direction which he has maintained from the very beginning, and will only accelerate should he win again in November. Think about some of the major actions of this administration:

A huge “stimulus” bill, most of which went to his supporters. If you look at where most of the money from the bill went, it went to businesses which supported his campaign, it went to businesses with union employees, it went to businesses which were ideologically aligned to his vision – during the auto bailouts, there were underreported reports that more car dealerships run by Republicans were shut down than those run by Democrats
ObamaCare is a huge intrusion of government into the most private aspect of our lives: as if the government does not have enough control over us – with ObamaCare, the state will literally have a complete say over how we run our own bodies. This is wrong, and was the furthest thing from the vision of our founders
Wars and more wars – while he presented himself as the one who would end the wars and bring back our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan – while he may have shuttered most operations in Iraq, things are still going strong elsewhere, and if anything he started even more undeclared wars in other places – I think the number is up to 6 or 7 now. This, coming from the “anti-war” President – no wonder so many of his supporters, even on the progressive side, are now publicly expressing their displeasure with him
His incredibly cavalier, royalty-like attitude when it comes to his life in comparison ot the lives of Americans – I don’t think there has been any previous president who acted with such disregard to the lives of the American people – the endless golf games, the incredibly expensive vacations, its as if he is literally rolling in our money in front of our eyes, rubbing his abuse of money stolen from us in our faces. It is simply disgusting
And finally, his latest, the killing of the Keystone XL pipeline is yet another blow against the private sector – his vision is to have huge swaths of Americans on the dole, being paid, working or not, directly by the Federal government, instead of them working for productive, private enterprises. In fact, the killing of Keystone XL was a double blow: it was not only a destruction of many American jobs, companies and money for the states it was slated to go through, it was a huge win for our likeliest top enemy of the 21st century, whether it be economic or military, which is of course, China. Obama killing Keystone XL is not only a blow for American, it is a boon for China

It’s almost as if he is acting as a double agent, wrecking us from within from the highest office of the land. We cannot bide yet another 4 years of this “rule” – we desperately need a new vision – a vision which will restore America.

Which nation will be the world’s leading superpower a few decades from now? I fervently hope it is the United States, and I have great faith in American ingenuity. But the Obama administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline is a reminder of why our No. 1 position is in jeopardy.

via NORTON: Obama chooses American decline – Washington Times.

Newt Gingrich for President is absolutely who we should support!

2012-01-21T15:16:00.000-06:00

by Vendome

America, Conservatives and Republicans. We must support Newt Gingrich.

He is a man of many accomplishments who gave us Welfare Reform, A Balanced Budget, and Reduced Taxes.

Further, he brought us a Republican Majority when we were lost in the desert and the GOP establishment said it couldn't be done.
Newt is the only candidate who thinks of big ideas, studies the challenges in achieving very difficult goals and then through, his leadership, explains how we are going to do it and then marshals them into eventuality.
Newt helped us achieve the above through his plan known as the Contract with America.
Newt has identified what is important to America, at this time and has a new plan that reflects the ideals every one of us has.
The 21st Century Contract with America is a Bold and Audacious initiative.
We will absoulutely have a Super Majority in the Congress and will have, at a minimum, a Majority in the Senate and God willing a Super Majority.
Think about that! Put your personality issues aside.
Newt has a real plan, that for all us, is an imperative.
With our majorities in the Congress and Senate he will have the power and ability to carry out that 21st Century Contract with America.
Let me explain below:

Record of Accomplishment and New Imperative to Return America to that Shinning City on a Hill

Well......

That's where a record comes in. Not just the record of votes, which is often a meaningless toll of positions taken for political reasons on bills that were always going to pass or were never going to pass, but a record of actions taken that actually mattered.

A record of actions taken that actually mattered. Newt is the man who fits that description to a "T".

He can identify what is most important to the country, develop a plan to overcome that challenge, articulate the the merits of overcoming the challenge and why the plan will work.

I hadn't been for Gingrich initially and spent plenty of energy excoriating him, these last several years, for any number of sins he committed against the Republican/Conservative ideals. He seemed a turncoat of sorts, particularly when he babysat Pelosi on the couch.

On reflection, Newt is an attention whore seeking relevancy for his ideas and I guess I take him at his word that he made a few mistakes in his life and he has at least some regret for those decisions. God knows I am no angel and so I have to reflect on the man's ability to get things done.

Newt gave us the Republican majority, the Contract with America and completed 2/3rds of his agenda while in office.

He now has a new plan for America and with what is likely to become a Congressional Super Majority and a Senate Majority, if not Super Majority, I believe he will absolutely accomplish his agenda.

Say goodbye to ObamaCare the single biggest scam and travesty foisted upon a free people who, by right, ought to have been given the opportunity to read the bill and debate it. Instead, a win at all cost, cheating agenda was developed and it was signed with most people never laying eyes on at least page 2 of this utopian dreck.

Executive Orders Positions:
The following are all within the executive powers to simply order and with the exception of securing the border within one year, they are all easily accomplished with the stroke of a pen and no way to challenge them in the legislature.
Keystone may be challenged in the courts but I think the Executive can order the EPA to approve, under National Security Priorities and it is a National Security issue, as well, a jobs issue.
As President, Newt, could actually have a very busy 1st week or month just on these initiative alone.
1. Eliminate the thirty-nine White House "Czar" positions created during the current administration. The president does not have the authority to appoint bureaucrats to power who are not accountable to the Congress.

2. "Mexico City Policy" of Respect for Life. Reauthorize President Ronald Reagan’s policy – also known as the "Mexico City Policy"— to stop tax payer dollars from being used to fund or promote abortions in foreign countries.

3. Restore conscience clause protections for Healthcare Workers.No American working in a medical environment should be forced to perform any procedure that he or she finds morally or ethically objectionable based on religious teaching. This protection should include, but not be limited to abortion. Existing conscience clause protections need to be strengthened.
4. Respect Each Sovereign Nation’s Choice of its Capital. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own Capital. Accordingly, the U.S. State Department should be instructed to respect the choice of each sovereign nation and place the American embassy in their Capital. (Israel is the only country the United States discriminates against in this regard. The people of Israel have designated Jerusalem as their capital. Yet the United States retains its embassy in Tel Aviv.)
5. End the Attorney General's Assault on the States. Instruct the Attorney General to withdraw all immigration-related lawsuits against states immediately, including those pending in Arizona and South Carolina. The Obama Administration refuses to enforce federal immigration laws, and instead sues states who are merely trying to enforce the laws that the federal government neglects. The Gingrich Administration will secure the border by Jan. 1, 2014 by any means necessary.

6. The Keystone Pipeline

Unleash American Energy by Approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. Instruct the State Department to approve a Presidential Permit immediately for the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that will send 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Great Plains and Southwestern states to Gulf Coast refineries lower staggering energy prices, and create up to 120,000 American jobs.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Now we get into the details of an inclusive agenda that brings the people(you and me), through their representatives, into process. The TEA Party and conservatives are going to have a majority in both houses.
Let’s elect an Executive who will absolutely fulfill the promise of our ideals.

Executive Summary

Repeal Obamacare and pass a replacement that saves lives and money by empowering patients and doctors, not bureaucrats and politicians.
Return to robust job creation with a bold set of tax cuts and regulatory reforms that will free American entrepreneurs to invest and hire, as well as by reforming the Federal Reserve and creating a training requirement for extended federal unemployment benefits to encourage work and improve the quality of our workforce.
Unleash America’s full energy production potential in oil, natural gas, coal, biofuels, wind, nuclear oil shale and more, creating jobs, stimulating a sustainable manufacturing boom, lowering gasoline and other energy prices, increasing government revenues, and bolstering national security.
Save Medicare and Social Security by giving Americans more choices and tools to live longer, healthier lives with greater financial independence.
Balance the federal budget by freeing job-creators to grow the economy, reforming entitlements, and implementing waste cutting and productivity improvement systems such as Lean Six Sigma to eliminate waste and fraud. Pass a balanced budget amendment to keep it balanced.
Control the border by January 1, 2014 and establish English as the official language of government; reform the legal visa system, and make it much easier to deport criminals and gang members while making it easier for law abiding visitors to come to the US.
Revitalize our national security system to meet 21st century threats by restructuring and adequately funding our security agencies to function within a grand strategy for victory over those who seek to kill us or limit American power.
Maximize the speed and impact of medical breakthroughs by removing unnecessary obstacles that block new treatments from reaching patients and emphasizing research spending towards urgent national priorities, like brain science with its impact on Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson's, mental health and other conditions knowledge of the brain will help solve.
Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution.
Enforce the Tenth Amendment by starting an orderly transfer of power and responsibility from the federal government back “to the states, respectively, or to the people,” as the Constitution requires. Over the next year, state and local officials and citizens will be asked to identify the areas which can be transferred back home.

Newt gave us the three most important victories of the 90’s Welfare Reform, Balanced Budget and Reduced Taxes. I hope I don’t need to describe the benefits of those victories. They ought to be obvious to everyone by now.

Lastly, there have been some reports that Newt shouldn’t get all the credit. Really? Then perhaps we marginalize the accomplishments of Washington, Roosevelt, Kennedy and ….wait for it… Reagan.

Do we really want to go down the road with that kind of adolescent sophistry and parsing of what happened?

Newt is the guy who thought of these big things, proposed them and shepherded their implementation?

Newt has once again identified what is important to us now, at this time and described how we can get there with our representative majorities. He has done it before and I declare Newt Gingrich was then and is Now a leader.

We should elect Newt Gingrich to the Presidency of the United States

Chuck Norris: My Endorsement for President

2012-01-21T07:23:00.002-06:00

Townhall.com ^ | Janary 21, 2012 | Chuck Norris

Our republic as our Founding Fathers created it is under assault from extremists outside our country and anti-constitutionalists inside our country. Combine that with the flailing American economy and global markets and you see that Western civilization is on the brink, as experts and all the GOP presidential candidates agree.

President Barack Obama has tried and failed miserably to fix our economy, deepening us and our posterity into more than $6 trillion of additional national debt -- something he criticized former President George W. Bush for as "unpatriotic" and "irresponsible." Yet the unemployment rate remains at a higher level than it was when Obama was elected, and the dollar is as unstable as the Middle East.
Now is not the time to be mincing through minutiae and fighting with fellow party members. Rome is burning, and we need to appoint the best firefighters possible to rush in and put out the fire. What's critical at this point is to appoint a commander in chief who can clearly lead America to a more solvent and secure future.
No man or candidate is perfect. We all have skeletons in our closets. If buried bones become unforgivable bones of contention, the world will never know another Benjamin Franklin or King David. We must remember that we're electing a president, not a pastor or pope. The mainstream media and a billion-dollar campaign coffer are on the president's side, so we need a veteran of political war who already has fought Goliath, because he will be facing Goliath's bigger brother.
In the past few editions of my weekly column, I detailed 10 questions to find our next president, in no particular order of importance. I proposed that the name of the candidate that fills the majority of the answers deserves readers' votes.
1) Who is most committed to follow and lead by the U.S. Constitution?
2) Who has the greatest ability to rally, unify and mobilize citizens across political and societal spectrums?
3) Who has the best working comprehension of America?
4) Who has the best ability to influence a volatile world away from the brink of destruction?
5) Who has clear and present moral fortitude?
6) Who has the best chance of beating President Obama, in and outside of debates?
7) Who has the best abilities to lead Washington politics and politicians?
8) Who has the best plan and leadership ability to restore America's economy?
9) Who is the most fiscally prudent?
10) Who has demonstrated the highest regard for human life?
My wife, Gena, and I sincerely believe that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the answer to most of those questions and deserves our endorsement and votes.
We agree with our friend and governor of the great state of Texas, Rick Perry, who suspended his campaign and endorsed Gingrich. He said Newt "has the heart of a conservative reformer." We believe that Newt's experience, leadership, knowledge, wisdom, faith and even humility to learn from his failures (personal and public) can return America to its glory days. And he is the best man left on the battlefield to outwit, outplay and outlast Obama and his campaign machine.
I would only challenge and call on Newt to fulfill the rallying strategy he outlined in South Carolina in November by utilizing the expertise and skill sets of the other GOP presidential candidates (even those who have bowed out) in his future administration. Newt explained:
"I do approach this whole campaign, I think, differently from everybody else. We have a number of friends who are also running. We have no opponents except Barack Obama. I think that's very important. I think (Abraham) Lincoln was very wise, as was captured in a book called 'Team of Rivals.' ... Literally everybody who was his opponent ended up in the Cabinet because he needed all of them in order to be able to put together the political power during the crisis that we faced. I would say the same thing. I don't know of a single person currently running who wouldn't be a very effective member of an administrative team and who doesn't have real talent and, in some way ... a unique strength. So I don't have any opponents on the Republican side."
As Gov. Perry said during his "strategic retreat" (citing Gen. Sam Houston) from the GOP presidential race, "this mission is greater than any one man."
I'm tired of watching our country be torn to shreds by those who think the answer is more government debt and control. I'm tired of being in bondage to a tax system that robs U.S. citizens as the king of England did before the Revolution. I'm tired of watching our sovereignty be sold by foreign loans and loose borders. And I will not sit back and merely watch this decay and degradation of the U.S. and then hand it over to my children and grandchildren to deal with.
That is why Gena and I have committed the rest of our lives to help Old Glory rise again to its heights of splendor. And that is why we are endorsing and standing with Newt Gingrich, because we believe he can lead all of us who have committed to the same.
If you're ready to keep fighting the good fight and once and for all restore our republic, then I invite you to join Gena and me by endorsing, rallying behind and voting for Newt Gingrich as GOP nominee and then president of the United States.

Obama Will Endorse Same-Sex Marriage In Tuesday’s State Of The Union

2012-01-21T07:20:00.000-06:00

The League of Ordinary Gentlemen ^ | January 20, 2012 | Elias Isquith
From Washington Blade: (a queer media)

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Friday he wouldn’t rule “in or out” the possibility of President Obama endorsing same-sex marriage in the upcoming State of the Union address.

Carney made the remarks on whether Obama would announce support for marriage equality during the State of the Union address, which is set to take place Tuesday before a joint session of Congress, in response to a question from the Washington Blade.

“I will not rule anything in or out,” Carney said. “I’m just not going to talk about — beyond pointing at his words — his personal views on this. I think his administration’s policies on related issues are there for people to judge.”

Most people of reasonable intelligence and common sense have long figured that the President’s declared ambivalence about gay marriage was a crock; and I think more than a few others were, like myself, of the opinion that he’d throw his weight behind SSM if he were lucky enough to get a second term. The assumption behind that supposition and that scenario is that there’s no upside to the President publicly endorsing the normative definition of marriage of his class, and that there was considerable downside in his doing so.

None other than Dan Savage himself explained why:

While national polls show a slim majority of Americans now support marriage equality, supporters of marriage equality aren’t evenly distributed throughout all 50 states. They’re over-represented in populous blue states that Obama is going to carry, under-represented in purple states that he needs to carry, and thin in the ground in red states that he has no hope of carrying. Electoral College Goddam. And maybe I’m a pessimist… but… I don’t think Obama endorsing marriage equality would convince any Republicans who support marriage equality (all six of them) to vote for him, I don’t think it by itself would convince independents to vote for him, and I think it would convince some conservative Democrats to vote against him.
What I think we’re all forgetting — or couldn’t have known all the way back in 2011, when Savage wrote the above — is that, in an almost deliciously ironic twist, Team Obama has decided to run in 2012 a base-centric campaign the likes of which we haven’t seen since… well, the last time an embattled and divisive President was going for reelection. And that’s pretty interesting in and of itself; it used to be the absolute most ironclad conventional wisdom of American politics that one could not win the White House unless one tilted (sometimes to the point of becoming horizontal) to the median voter.
But this country’s political system has changed dramatically in the past generation, and the mushy middle has increasingly receded as voters gravitated towards one ideological pole or another. In a more or less evenly-divided country, playing towards the base — implementing the Rovian 50%+1 strategy — makes a lot of sense. Still, we’re slow to recognize the kind of sociological change this would reflect, and generally we only see it for what it is after it’s long been standing in front of our noses.

Dear Juan Williams, Even My 10-Year-Old Daughter Understands the Value of Hard Work

2012-01-21T07:06:00.001-06:00

Mental Recession ^ | 01/18/2012 | Rusty

I was watching the debate last night with my wife and daughter. At ten years of age, she does occasionally surprise with her interest in current events.

She sat quietly as bed time approached, with quiet being a rarity at that time of night, and listened as Juan Williams injected race into a question about hard work.

Speaker Gingrich, you recently said, “Black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps.” You also said, “Poor kids lack a strong work ethic,” and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

We then watched as Newt skillfully responded, defending his stance:

Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any President in American history. I know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.

...

I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.

Off to bed she went...

The Gingrich response may prove to be a pivotal point in the debate, or it may not. But it clearly left an indelible mark on my daughter. The following day she penned a letter to whoever may serve as the next President of the United States. In it, she wrote:

In Social Studies, we are learning about how the patriots put in the hard work to change America, even in the most difficult of times

...

My point is, even in the most difficult times in the office always remember, this country was founded upon freedom, liberty, justice, but most of all hard work. Hard work made America what it is today. Hard work made America so revolutionary, and if you become President, it's YOUR responsibility to keep it that way.

Hard work - a universal attribute of Americans. Not blacks, not whites - Americans.

Do you get it now, Juan?

Tea Party bides its time in Republican race

2012-01-21T06:50:00.002-06:00

ibnlive.in.com ^ | Jan 21, 2008 | By Anna Fifield, Financial Times
Greenville (South Carolina): The hungry customers at Tommy's Country Ham House in Greenville will not be satisfied with what rightwing critics call the liberal, Obama-like ways of Mitt Romney, frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the presidential race.

"Romney is not a conservative. Romney is just about as moderate as Ted Kennedy," said Jerry Smith, a 64-year-old retiree who ate a breakfast of pancakes and bacon this week at Tommy's, a local Republican stronghold that has been visited by every candidate except Mr Romney.
Mr Smith plans to vote for Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary on Saturday, calling him "the most electable conservative candidate".
His friend, Tom Barton, agreed. "He's the only one who can carry the water against Obama," he said.
Polls indicate a close race with Mr Gingrich slightly in front. A win for the former House speaker would inject momentum into his campaign.
Victory for Mr Romney, who is viewed with suspicion in the conservative state partly because of his previously centrist positions, would signal he is competitive even in the south.
The former governor of Massachusetts has concentrated his campaign in the more moderate coastal areas, where he is likely to do well. His presence in the sharply more conservative upstate region around Greenville, an area where the Tea Party movement has been influential, has been negligible.
Authentic conservatism is important here, where voters routinely denigrate Barack Obama, president, for his "European socialist" ways.
All of the candidates have been trying to prove their pro-life, pro-family, budget-cutting credentials to voters like Mr Smith, who voice very conservative opinions on issues such as abortion.

(Excerpt) Read more at ibnlive.in.com ...

Judge whacks Obama in eligibility case

2012-01-20T18:55:00.000-06:00

CERTIFIGATE

'Defendant has failed to enlighten the court with legal authority'

A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.
WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.
“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”
Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for the cases, argued that he should be exempted.
“Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate. I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting president is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals,” Taitz said.
She told WND that it’s been 40 years since any court issued such a ruling concerning a president.
Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had gotten a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the goal apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligiblity, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much about it.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.
Hatfield also had filed with the court a “Notice to Produce” asking for Obama’s documents and records.
He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
Also, required are medical, religious administrative and other records about Obama’s birth; passports, applications and related records; college and university applications; bar association applications and materials; details on the citizenship of Obama’s father and other documents.
Taitz had filed an opposition to the motion to quash, taking Obama directly to task over what many consider an important constitutional question – the eligibility of a presidential candidate.
“It is noteworthy, that [the quash request] comes on the heels of his extended 17 day Hawaiian vacation, which cost U.S. taxpayers 4 million dollars. Mr. Obama has earned a dubious distinction as a Vacationer in Chief, Tourist in Chief, Partier in Chief and a Golfer in Chief due to his endless vacations, parties and rounds of golf. Considering … it is not too much to ask for Mr. Obama to show up once at a hearing and present his original identification records, which were not seen by anyone in the country yet,” she argued.
Obama’s attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own business.
“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argues.
Taitz’s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.
“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.
Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.

Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The Georgia hearing apparently will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states.

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

NTSB: Controller nearly caused midair collision [unionized govt worker can't be fired]

2012-01-20T06:52:00.000-06:00

yahoo.com ^ | January 18, 2012 | JOAN LOWY
An air traffic controller with a history of disciplinary problems nearly caused a midair collision

A regional jet operated by ExpressJet and a single-engine Cessna came within 300 feet of colliding after they were cleared to take off on intersecting runways at Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport in Mississippi on June 19.

Airport tower controller Robert Beck first cleared the Cessna to take off on runway 18, according to the documents. About 16 seconds later, Beck cleared the regional jet, Continental Express Flight 2555, to take off on runway 14, which crosses runway 18. No warning was issued to either pilot about the other plane even though another controller who heard the takeoff clearances told investigators he shouted a warning to Beck, "You've got two rolling!"

Both planes were at the same altitude, about 300 feet above the airport, when they passed within 300 feet laterally of each other. As the planes passed, the ExpressJet captain exclaimed to his co-pilot: "Wow, that was close." One air traffic manager told investigators, "It was a miracle that no one died,"
Beck had "a history of professional deficiencies that included taking shortcuts with phraseology and not complying with standard checklist procedures,"
Beck, a controller for 23 years, also had been suspended several times within the last five years for tardiness, absenteeism and failure to report an arrest for driving under the influence. Beck also had been removed from duties training less experienced controllers after a trainee complained that "Mr. Beck was in the back of the room with his feet up and eyes closed" while conducting training sessions
Beck is still an air traffic controller
Doug Church, a spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said the union takes incidents like the near-collision in Mississippi "very seriously."

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

The Most Racist Journalist in Media?

2012-01-20T06:43:00.000-06:00

Mental Recession ^ | 1/13/12 | Rusty

Well, she’s certainly making a case for the title.

In a piece titled, When white people lack “bourgeois values”, the Salon Editor at Large manages a race and class-baiting exacta, covering an alleged economic disdain shown by Republicans towards African-Americans, and charging the GOP with promoting policies which “shackle women to the home”.

In attacking a Rick Santorum speech on family values, in which he correctly stated, “When the family breaks down, the economy breaks down”, Walsh had this to say:
It’s a fascinating worldview that colors the entire GOP primary campaign, in which actual policies to help workers and families are rejected in favor of those that cut government and shackle women to the home, and it needs to be better understood.

It’s also another reminder that the prejudice and disdain Republicans once reserved for African-Americans has spread like a toxic mist to stigmatize a lot of other people, including a lot of white folks.
In citing proof of these allegations of prejudice towards white people, Walsh embarrassingly references the 46 million Americans on food stamps, the vast majority of whom are “white people”.
Embarrassing why? Because it was just last May that Walsh used the ‘food stamp’ argument to prove that Newt Gingrich had used the phrase as “coded racism” against “black people”.

Calling the use of the term ‘food stamp’, racist towards blacks, when a majority of those on food stamps are white, can only make sense in the mind of a bigot projecting their own true brand of racism.

(Excerpt) Read more at mentalrecession.blogspot.com ...

Hold On

2012-01-20T06:37:00.002-06:00

Overpaid

2012-01-20T06:34:00.002-06:00

Racist!

2012-01-20T06:30:00.002-06:00

Great Shape

2012-01-20T06:29:00.002-06:00

Marxism

2012-01-20T06:26:00.002-06:00

Taxes

2012-01-20T06:24:00.002-06:00

Adding

2012-01-20T06:21:00.002-06:00

The Land of Obama Make-Believe

2012-01-20T06:16:00.000-06:00

Townhall.com ^ | January 20, 2012 | Michelle Malkin
Where did President Obama go after killing off thousands of Keystone XL pipeline construction and manufacturing jobs? Why, Disney World, of course. Sabotaging work is hard work for Goofy and his pals.

_And where'd he head after that? Why, up to Manhattan for more high-priced campaign fundraisers charging up to $38,500 per partier. The business of wining and dining politically connected donors ain't child's play, you know.

Obama touted a White House foreign tourism initiative on Thursday with Cinderella's castle as his backdrop. "America is open for business," he proclaimed chirpily to the rest of the globe.
Tell that to the Keystone managers in Canada whom Obama and his State Department rebuffed -- after years of planning and review -- in order to appease militant environmentalists and Hollywood celebs. The Animatronic Divider robotically lambasted Republicans for pushing him to make a decision this week. But Senate and House Democrats issued the sharpest rebukes to White House obstructionism:
"President Obama's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America's energy independence," Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said.
"The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence," Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., lamented.
"This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security," Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, pointed out.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scratched their heads as the job-snuffer-in-chief bolted to Orlando's fantasyland to promote economic growth. But there's no more fitting place on Earth for the man whose escapist administration occupies the land of make-believe and no consequences. (Bonus moment: Obama got to shake hands with Mickey Mouse, who infamously turned up on a Florida ACORN voter registration form in 2008. Constituent outreach at its most surreal.)
On the very same day he quashed Keystone, Obama released his first campaign ad of 2012 -- hyping his stellar record on energy jobs. It's Opposite Day at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 365 days a year. Even more comically, the ad touted his exemplary ethics record by quoting a moldy three-year-old endorsement from left-leaning Politifact. And as bipartisan Capitol Hill outrage over the half-billion-dollar Solyndra solar stimulus bust mounts, Obama had the nerve to sprinkle his inaugural campaign spot with -- wait for it -- solar panels.
Instead of supporting new infrastructure jobs in America through an energy independence-enhancing project that has bipartisan legislative support on Capitol Hill, the president flew to Disney World to peddle looser visa restrictions in China and Brazil by executive order. He also will expand the Visa Waiver Program (a security loophole-ridden program that was suspended temporarily after the 9/11 terrorist attacks) to speed foreign travel.
In case anyone needs reminding, it was the relentless drive of the tourism industry and kowtowing State Department bureaucrats that led to the Bush-era Visa Express Program, which relaxed visa policies, eliminated in-person consulate interviews and opened the door to the 9/11 hijackers. Brazil is just the latest base for al-Qaida and other Islamic jihadi groups. It does not consider Hezbollah or Hamas terrorist groups, and it disbanded its anti-terrorism force in 2009.
The Visa Waiver Program and other efforts to expedite the tourist visa process also pose continuing security risks because -- as the Government Accountability Office itself admitted last year -- there is still no comprehensive, systematic way to track the 70 million-plus foreign visitors who enter the country on tourist and other short-term visas. Indeed, half of the nation's estimated 20 million illegal aliens are visa overstayers.
How many of the new Disney foreign tourists whom Obama is touting as America's economic salvation will fail to return to their home countries after their Obama World visas expire? We'll likely never know. And Team Obama doesn't care.
In his opening campaign ad salvo, Obama accuses his opponents of being "untethered to facts." But this is an administration that believes lowering visa standards and risking homeland security to pump up Disney foreign tourism is a better path to economic recovery than supporting direct American job creation and enhancing energy security. Like the Disney characters he posed with this week, our cartoonish president is wholly untethered to reality.

Obama's First Ad of the Campaign Proves He's in Deep Trouble

2012-01-20T06:08:00.000-06:00

The Atlantic ^ | January 19, 2012
The president starts things off on the defensive, as a new poll shows his standing is worse than conventional wisdom holds.

Here in South Carolina, all the attention is on the looming primary and on Romney's tax returns. But the most revelatory development over the last 24 hours is that President Obama's re-election campaign is up with its first ad, which strikes a surprisingly defensive tone - especially for a sitting president. The Obama team apparently thought Obama could be vulnerable on ethics -- usually perceived as a relative strong suit for him -- and is defending his record on that front.
Two thoughts:

It shows that Obama is highly vulnerable on Solyndra, an example of government overreach that jibes ideally with Romney's general election narrative.
[Snip]
Has there ever been a presidential campaign that's started out on the defensive with its first ad? I can't think of one.
[Snip]

Obama is in deeper trouble than the conventional wisdom holds. This ad is proof of that.

(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...

2012-01-19T14:57:00.001-06:00

Laborers Union Slams Obama’s Keystone XL Decision
LonelyConservative ^ | Jan 19, 2012 | Lonely Conservative
Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:50:40 PM by csd
There’s a little lovers quarrel between President Obama and some labor unions over his decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline and the thousands of jobs that would have come with it. Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ union issued the following statement, vowing that blue collar workers will not forget this betrayal.

The score is Job-Killers, two; American workers, zero. We are completely and totally disappointed. This is politics at its worst,” LIUNA General President Terry O’Sullivan said. “Once again the President has sided with environmentalists instead of blue collar construction workers – even though environmental concerns were more than adequately addressed. Blue collar construction workers across the U.S. will not forget this.” The project would create thousands of good jobs at a time when unemployment in the construction industry is 16 percent with 1.3 million men and women jobless.
Environmental groups have used the Keystone XL as a disingenuous proxy for arguments about global warming. The pipeline would carry up to 900,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada’s Tar Sands to the U.S., reducing reliance on oil from hostile nations. While environmental groups decry Tar Sands development, the Canadian government and Trans-Canada, the company developing the Tar Sands, have made clear the oil will be developed – and possibly sold to China – regardless of whether Keystone XL is built.

(Excerpt) Read more at lonelyconservative.com ...

New Records Obtained by Judicial Watch Show Obama White House Coordination with Department of Justice on Voting Rights Enforcement

2012-01-19T14:56:00.000-06:00

Judicial Watch ^ | January 19, 2012

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has received additional documents about meetings held between Estelle Rogers, Director of Advocacy for the ACORN-affiliated organization Project Vote, and officials from the Obama White House and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Judicial Watch is investigating the extent to which Project Vote, which once employed Barack Obama, has been working with the Obama administration to use voter registration laws to register greater numbers of low-income voters, widely considered to be an important voting demographic for the Obama presidential campaign.

The additional documents, provided in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on August 19, 2011, detail email communications between Rogers and high ranking officials from the Obama White House and DOJ. The following are highlights from the records:

On April 27, 2009, Estelle Rogers wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sam Hirsh regarding an upcoming meeting on April 30, 2009. In addition to Rogers and Hirsh, other attendees included: Nicole Kovite, Director of Public Agency Project for Project Vote; Spencer Overton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy; and two officials from the Obama White House: Celia Muñoz, then-Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and recently promoted to Director of the Domestic Policy Council; and Tino Cuellar, Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy.

In her email, Rogers references documents she forwarded in preparation for the upcoming meeting on the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), to which Hirsch replies that he looks forward to “reading these materials” and to “seeing everyone on Thursday.”

On February 23, 2011, Rogers wrote to Associate Deputy Attorney General Robert Weiner, asking him to “make some headway with Attorney General [Eric] Holder in enforcing Section 7 of the NVRA.” The email notes that the DOJ had not yet filed any Section 7 lawsuits, which Rogers dubbed “deeply disappointing.” The first such DOJ lawsuit (against Rhode Island) was filed on March 18, 2011, less than one month later. Of particular note, is Rogers’ comment that “We have received oral assurances from [Assistant Attorney General Thomas] Perez on several occasions that enforcement action was imminent,” suggesting that Rogers was privy to internal discussions inside the DOJ regarding pending legal action.

On March 29, 2011, Rogers wrote to Associate Attorney General [Thomas] Perrelli, urging him to review and “make improvements” to a document she was sending following another meeting held on March 17, 2011 between Project Vote and the DOJ on Section 7 compliance with the NRVA. Accompanying the document was a previous letter she had sent to the Civil Rights Division plus “additional comments on the Q and A.”

On December 14, 2011, Judicial Watch released a separate batch of documents which also detail the partnership between the Obama DOJ and Project Vote.
As Director of Advocacy for Project Vote, Estelle Rogers ‒ a former attorney for ACORN, which was besieged with charges of corruption before declaring bankruptcy in November 2010 ‒ is a primary contact person on policy matters at Project Vote on both state and federal levels and has been actively involved in voter registration issues. Using the threat of a lawsuit under the NVRA, Project Vote has aggressively sought to manipulate voter registration laws in various states to increase the registration of people receiving public assistance.
On August 4, 2011, Judicial Watch released documents obtained from the Colorado Department of State showing that ACORN and Project Vote successfully pressured Colorado officials into implementing new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. Following the policy changes, the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average. Project Vote also sought a “legislative fix” to allow people without a driver’s license or state identification to register to vote online.
In addition to pursuing public agency registration cases in Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia and New Mexico, Project Vote and the NAACP filed a lawsuit on April 19, 2011, against the State of Louisiana alleging violations of the NVRA. Less than three months later, on July 12, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division/Voting Section sued Louisiana on the same grounds, claiming that “Louisiana officials have not routinely offered voter registration forms, assistance and services to the state’s eligible citizens who apply, recertify or provide a change address for public assistance or disability services.”
The DOJ’s March 11, 2011, lawsuit against Rhode Island led to policy changes intended to increase the number of voter registration applications processed by “public assistance and disability service officers.” These two lawsuits, filed within five months of each other, are the first such lawsuits filed by the DOJ since 2007.
Project Vote and ACORN have both been linked to massive voter registration fraud. A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. And as documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid.

“These documents raise fundamental questions about the politicization of the Justice Department under Eric Holder and demonstrate that the ACORN-connected Project Vote is throwing its weight around the Justice Department and driving the agency’s voting rights agenda. And evidently the Obama White House is now directly implicated in this growing scandal,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “It is now clear that Project Vote and the Obama/Holder Justice Department are conspiring to file Justice Department lawsuits to help re-elect Barack Obama. This collusion between Project Vote and the Obama administration is a significant threat to the integrity of the 2012 elections. To have Project Vote involved in the Justice voting rights enforcement is like having the Mafia run the FBI.”

The Ethics of Audacity

2012-01-19T14:42:00.000-06:00

Townhall.com ^ | January 18, 2012 | Reince Priebus
He promised there wouldn’t be lobbyists. Not a one.

But less than a week into Barack Obama’s presidency (a week!), the White House had hired at least a dozen of them. They granted exceptions for some, and for others they exploited loopholes in the administration’s own self-written, self-imposed rules.

Anyone taken by surprise by the more recent White House scandals—Solyndra, Operation Fast and Furious, the downfall of Obama’s “Wall Street Guy” Jon Corzine—really shouldn’t have been surprised at all. That early ethical backpedalling was excellent, if not unfortunate, foreshadowing of what was to come.

Over the last three years, Barack Obama has proven to be nothing but a typical politician—willing to promise anything, and equally willing to break any promise. As a result, Team Obama has shattered the image of ethical superiority they so carefully molded. Yet, in hopes of scoring a few more political points, they still cling to that image, bitter that no one takes them at their word anymore.
Candidate Obama was either exceptionally naïve or willfully disingenuous when he vowed to change the way Washington works. The very promise of Hope and Change was rooted in uprooting the Washington modus operandi. But instead of rejecting it, he embraced it all—the secrecy, the closed doors, the political favors, the near-criminal negligence.
Is it terribly surprising for an administration filled with veteran Chicago politicos? There’s a reason “Chicago-style politics” rings like an epithet—even in Washington. And in true Chicago form, the White House denies wrongdoing even when presented with undeniable evidence.
“The most transparent administration in history,” is White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s go-to line. Yes, the American people can see right through many of Team Obama’s political ploys, but that’s not likely what he means.
The Solyndra scandal proved the fallacy of the “most transparent” mantra—if it wasn’t already obvious. When Congress subpoenaed documents relating to the White House’s involvement in the now-bankrupt stimulus-backed solar energy company, the administration called the demands “unprecedented and unnecessary.”
President Obama promised a “new standard of openness,” but apparently it wasn’t a very high one.
Eventually, though, reporters pieced together the truth: the Obama administration loaned $535 million of taxpayer money to a company backed by one of its top campaign fundraising bundlers, despite warnings that the company was a bad investment. On top of that, they ensured that, in the event the company went bankrupt, taxpayers would be the last to be repaid. Long story short, we’re not getting our $535 million back.
Solyndra is just the tip of the unethical iceberg. The White House has been happily dolling out favors for fundraisers for the past three years. Clean energy investor Steve Westly bundled over $500,000 for the campaign; he had a direct line to advisor Valerie Jarrett. Tech investor Steve Spinner also bundled 500 grand. He landed a job overseeing the very loan program from which Solyndra benefitted.
Other bundlers received millions in stimulus funds, lucrative staff positions, and visits to the White House. The business leaders now advising Obama on the president’s “Jobs Council” were among his top campaign financiers.
And then there’s Jon Corzine, the man whose company, MF Global, lost $1.2 billion in hard-working Americans’ money. He too bundled $500,000 for the president’s campaign and bought himself a generous helping of Washington influence. Joe Biden boasted on multiple occasions that Corzine was the first person he called for advice on the economy and crafting the $825 billion failed stimulus.
Even more troubling, especially for the victims of Corzine’s recklessness, his political connections in the White House may have helped delay the very rules from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that would likely have prevented the loss of that $1.2 billion. The New York Times’ Ben Protess reported last month that the agency proposed a crackdown on certain investment practices, but “met a powerful roadblock in Mr. Corzine.”
Even as the pay-for-play politics comes to light, the Obama campaign continues to accept money from lobbyists. However, to uphold their pledge not to do so, they are sure to take money only from unregistered lobbyists. But a lobbyist by any other name would be, well, still a lobbyist. In others words, they get to be ethical only on a technicality.
What do these fundraising lobbyists get in return? Plenty. As Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times reported in October, they “glide easily through the corridors of power in Washington, with a number of them hosting Mr. Obama at fundraisers while also visiting the White House on policy matters and official business.”
They are getting special treatment from the administration of the very same man that in 2008 declared that lobbyists “have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."
But something is most certainly drowning out those voices; roughly three-quarters of the country says we’re on the wrong track. Someone has the president’s ear, and it certainly isn’t the American people. From Obamacare to Obamanomics, he has spent the last three years going against the will of the people more often than not. And the results have been undeniably devastating—higher unemployment, higher underemployment, higher poverty, higher healthcare costs.
Now, standing astride the wreckage of his first administration, he audaciously promises a second term will be different. He promises that if we give him a second term, he’ll finally be able to get the job done.
But he also promised there wouldn’t be lobbyists.

Obama to Obama Jobs Council: I Disagree (shock!)

2012-01-19T14:35:00.000-06:00

The Foundry/Heritage Foundation ^ | January 19, 2012 at 12:30 pm | J.D. Foster, Ph.D.
President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness released its third report January 17 entitled “Road Map to Renewal,” a worthy description of serious issues affecting the American economy coupled with set of proposals that, with few exceptions, can best be described as pretty thin gruel.

The council—chaired by Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and CEO of GE—was obviously constrained in many cases by political considerations imposed on it either by the Obama Administration or by itself as it recognized the political season.

However, this report will likely be best known for the quickness with which its own sponsor, President Obama, loudly “dissed” it, in the urban vernacular.

At least with Obama’s 2010 Simpson–Bowles deficit commission, the President waited a couple of months before embarrassingly ignoring the commission’s recommendations in toto. In the case of the Jobs Council report, the President set a new land speed record of about 24 hours before explicitly repudiating one of the council’s key recommendations.

The council’s report sensibly observes that the United States will need to “optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel.” One of the council’s reasonable recommendations from an earlier report was to “streamline environmental permitting” to expedite the review of infrastructure projects, such as transmission and distribution pipelines.
On January 18, the day after the release of the Jobs Council report, President Obama killed the Keystone XL pipeline that would have carried oil from Canada’s bounteous fields to waiting Gulf Coast refineries, creating tens of thousands of jobs now and greatly reducing the nation’s exposure to Middle East oil for decades to come. Now, thanks to Obama’s cowtowing to the environmental lobby, the Canadians will apparently build a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean to ship the oil to China for their economy to use. No doubt the Chinese will appreciate the magnanimous gesture, but it seems unlikely that the President’s council, not to mention America’s struggling workers, will do likewise.
The Keystone fiasco aside, one of the more curious elements of the council’s report is its emphasis on American manufacturing. A common perception is that America’s manufacturers are steadily and inexorably losing ground to foreign competition, a perception reinforced by the persistent reminder of foreign car brands on the nation’s highways and a steady decline in manufacturing employment. Fortunately, the perception is largely wrong.
It is certainly true that employment in manufacturing has fallen in recent decades. The council’s report observes that in 1980, manufacturing accounted for about 20 percent of American jobs, whereas the comparable figure today is about 9 percent. At the same time, manufacturing’s share of total production has remained roughly stable and, in fact, the United States and China are the only countries to have gained significant world share in manufacturing in recent years. The line that connects and explains these two dots of strong manufacturing and manufacturing job loss is the rapid increase in labor productivity, the result of innovation, and global competitive pressures.
With this strong performance in manufacturing, why, then, does the report suggest that we need to tilt the nation’s economic policy focus even more toward manufacturing? To be sure, as the report affirms, “Manufacturing matters.” But so, too, do health care services, financial services, and many other sectors. The extra emphasis placed on an apparently relatively healthy economic sector loudly smacks of an unjustified and unjustifiable policy bias and an unhealthy sense of government-knows-best industrial planning.
In other areas, the report includes a useful discussion of the role of federal regulations and “how best to strike a balance between competing public objectives” of job creation on the one hand and the need to achieve regulatory intent on the other. Unfortunately, the preponderance of the discussion and recommendations involve trying to rationalize the regulatory review process for new regulations, which are grains of sand compared to the massive mountain of existing regulations. The council’s focus should have been on how to clear away some of the mountain.
Only the third recommendation in the regulation discussion touches on the mountain, calling for a “retrospective review of rules and their impact,” directing the badly outgunned and undermanned Office of Independent Regulatory Analysis (OIRA) within the White House’s Office of Management and Budget to “provide guidance on how agencies should prioritize the review of rules and develop and implement a system for retrospective review in the future.” In effect, OIRA is to develop a plan for a system to devise a review of how to study what agencies might like to consider. That’s Washington-speak for “do nothing.”
The one really bright spot in the report is the call for tax reform, especially the need to simplify the corporate income tax and reduce the corporate income tax rate, which, as of April 1 (when Japan finally reduces its rate), will be the highest in the industrialized world at 39.2 percent. Unfortunately, the report is silent on the closely related issue of the need to reform the rest of the tax system, especially the taxation of non-corporate businesses, such as partnerships and sole proprietorships. It is unreasonable and implausible to imagine that the federal government could or would substantially simplify the tax system and cut the tax rate facing the largest businesses while leaving small and medium-sized businesses stuck with the old, complex system and high tax rates.
The Jobs Council has added useful ideas and recommendations to the nation’s policy menu. Many of these are quite modest in scope, and some are misguided or suggest an errant focus, but overall the council’s work has borne fruit. One can only hope that some of the better ideas from the council’s report receive a moment’s consideration in the White House before being squashed by President Obama, as with the Keystone decision

The Impracticality of making a Cheeseburger from scatch!

2012-01-19T10:32:00.000-06:00

By David Wogan

What does the cheeseburger say about our modern food economy? A lot, actually. Over the past several years blogger Waldo Jaquith (http://waldo.jaquith.org/) set out to make a cheeseburger from scratch, to no avail. “Further reflection revealed that it’s quite impractical—nearly impossible—to make a cheeseburger from scratch,” he writes. “Tomatoes are in season in the late summer. Lettuce is in season in spring and fall. Large mammals are slaughtered in early winter. The process of making such a burger would take nearly a year and would inherently involve omitting some core cheeseburger ingredients. It would be wildly expensive—requiring a trio of cows—and demand many acres of land. There’s just no sense in it.”

That the cheeseburger—our delicious and comforting everyman food—didn’t exist 100 years ago is a greasy, shiny example of all that is both right and wrong with our modern food economy. Thanks to fertilizers, genetically modified crops, concentrated farming operations and global overnight shipping, much of the world was lifted out of starvation (but not malnutrition, ironically enough) because it could finally grow sufficient quantities of food with decreasing labor inputs.

But these same advances that allow food to be grown out of season and in all corners of the globe contribute to a whole host of environmental problems, from deforestation and nitrogen loading of water sources (and the resulting dead zones) to the insane quantities of water being consumed. The “industrialization of food,” as author Paul Roberts puts it, is a relentless cycle driven by razor-thin price margins that force food processors to adopt more advanced techniques to produce even more food at lower prices. This system will only be exacerbated as food demand increases. Recently David Tilman and Jason Hill of the University of Minnesota released a study anticipating that global food demand could double by 2050. It’s doubtful that our current, impractical food economy can sustain that demand.

Why The Media Wants Romney To Win The Nomination So Badly

2012-01-19T10:22:00.000-06:00

Riehl World View ^ | Jan 18, 2011 | Dan Riehl
This recent item in the New York Times below is in good part what's behind the liberal media's desire to see Mitt Romney get the nomination. Now, I don't see Romney quite this way. But the left does. Religion, wealth, a "retro vision of the country." In short, in Romney they see everything they have been working to destroy for decades. They even want to pretend he isn't flawed, hence the over-looking of his many gaffes and retorts that invite his being slammed. But they don't slam him, ... not for now.

Read it. Then realize how badly they will aim to destroy him in the general. And as his campaign stands today, he'll be a sitting duck. He's configured perfectly for a GOP primary today, even if he had to contort himself and disregard principle to get there. The media has already annointed him. But remember the day after McCain got the nomination and they turned on him, the first story being some alleged affair, or something? That was nothing.

In Romney, the media, wrongly, in my opinion, sees the perfect symbol of everything they are against. Now, imagine what it would mean to them and the Left to beat him, especially with Obama? For them it will be like turning a page in America that can never be turned back. And only a fool would think they won't do everything to destroy him after having made him appear so invincible. Unfortunately, combined with a lack of enthusiasm on the part of conservatives because he's actually such a weak candidate, they very likely will get their wish.
What’s Race Got to Do With It?
Pundits have already begun the endless debate over whether Mr. Romney’s wealth and religion are hindrances or assets. But there has yet to be any discussion over the one quality that has subtly fueled his candidacy thus far and could well put him over the top in the fall: his race. The simple, impolitely stated fact is that Mitt Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory.
Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density. I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president. It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America.

Obama’s Racial Politics

2012-01-19T10:15:00.002-06:00

NRO ^ | January 18, 2012 | Victor Davis Hanson
Never has America been more assimilated, integrated, and intermarried — as is evident in everything from politics to popular culture, from statistics to anecdotes. Yet from late 2007 to 2012, Barack Obama has been establishing new rules of racial referencing. In general, his utterances follow a disheartening pattern. When he is ahead in the polls, has won an election, and is not campaigning, then he emphasizes the unity of the country. But when he is running for president, or campaigning for others, or sinking in the polls, he and his closest associates predictably revert to charges of racial bigotry, albeit usually coded and subtle. America is redeemed when it champions the Obamas, but retrograde when it does not.

Obama’s race-based strategy is predicated on some unspoken assumptions: Any short-term damage incurred by engaging in racial tribalism can easily be later erased by soaring teleprompted speeches on racial harmony; the media will either not widely report his emphases on race or generally support his charges; a person of color can hardly be culpable of racial polarization himself given the history of racial discrimination in this country.
[snip] Recently, First Lady Michelle Obama complained about a description of her White House infighting in an otherwise favorable account of the first family, written by a New York Times reporter. She suggested that the book’s criticism was unfair because “That’s been an image that people have tried to paint of me since, you know, the day Barack announced, that I’m some angry black woman.”
[snip] Attorney General Eric Holder has often found race a convenient refuge from criticism — most recently accusing his congressional auditors of racism, for their grilling him over government sales of firearms to Mexican cartel hitmen.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Balanced

2012-01-19T07:12:00.002-06:00

Promise

2012-01-19T07:11:00.000-06:00

Oh, is that all?

2012-01-19T07:09:00.003-06:00

The Finger

2012-01-19T07:05:00.000-06:00

person of the year

2012-01-19T07:02:00.000-06:00

Front Runner

2012-01-19T06:48:00.002-06:00