Friday, February 26, 2010

Fun And Frivolity: Mocking Microsoft, Patriot Humor, And A Modern Spin On A Timeless Classic

This website posts their top 10 videos mocking the company we all love to hate: Microsoft. These are my favorites:





Now we have some humor from Patriot Post:


Scary accurate, huh?

Speaking of scary accurate, here's a modern spin on a timeless classic that a friend forwarded to me:
THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

Two different versions, two different morals...

OLD VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...' ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome. Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ants food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses, bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

Don't bother sending this on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't understand it, anyway.

I'm not sure Kermit would have participated like this, but otherwise it seems dead on to me!

Have a great weekend!

What Makes A Leftist Tick?

Scott Strzelczyk tackles this question at American Thinker, and I think it's an excellent read:

Enamored of the promise of a utopian society and aided by a complicit mainstream media, leftist ideologues constantly assail free-market capitalism, the Constitution, religion, and individual responsibility. Their actions are rooted in and justified by a dogmatic ideology. Their ideology is a charade providing a self-serving presumption of moral superiority to others. 

Dig deeper to reveal their greatest motivation: fear.

Leftist ideologues comprising environmental extremists, progressives, liberals (the hijacked definition), socialists, and communists believe that the ends justify the means -- that governance may use any means necessary to achieve predetermined outcomes. Characteristics of the leftist ideology include a heavily regulated economy and/or government owned industry, equal outcomes and economic leveling, multiculturalism, moral relativism, and the perfection of mankind. 

According to Russell Kirk, father of modern conservatism, characteristics of the conservative ideology include the beliefs that an enduring moral order exists, that prudent change is necessary but ought to be slow and gradual, that freedom and property are inextricably linked, the desire to uphold voluntary community and oppose involuntary collectivism, and belief in the principles of variety and prescription while recognizing that man is imperfect.

The philosophical, political, moral, social, and economic principles of the leftist and conservative ideologies diametrically oppose one another. There are numerous practical examples to support this assertion.

The Constitution is the law of the land and formed our style of government, a constitutional republic. The Constitution was established to protect individual rights and liberties against a coercive government. Indeed, it protects the very smallest minority in this country: the individual. To ensure adherence to this principle, the Constitution created a federal government with limited powers that specifically designate what the legislative, executive, and judicial branches can legitimately do. In other words, the means must conform to the constraints of the Constitution, and the ends cannot violate individual rights and liberties. 

However, the leftist ideologue dismisses the Constitution's original intent and meaning, as it constrains the leftist's pursuit of ideological supremacy. To confiscate a person's property, redistribute wealth, restrict free speech, or force a person to purchase a product would violate the very principle the Constitution was established upon. The leftist must subvert constitutional intent and usurp power that was otherwise not granted to advance the leftist ideology -- often violating individual rights and liberties in the process.

The leftist ideologue believes that the needs and rights of the nation-state supersede the needs and rights of the individual. Through legislative fiat and judicial activism, leftist ideology is forced upon society. The leftist believes that the Constitution is a stale document created centuries ago by some old, crotchety men. The leftist believes in a living, breathing Constitution that adapts to the leftist ideology, which justifies the leftist's methods and outcomes. The leftist cannot acknowledge the Constitution's original intent and meaning ,as it would circumvent his ideology. The leftist functions as though the country is a democracy, where majority rules and laws of men prevail. Naturally, the leftist ideologue fears the Constitution.

The basis of our economic system is free-market capitalism.  Over the past two hundred years, capitalism eroded into an economic system based partially on free markets and partially on a heavily government-regulated marketplace. Recently, the government has taken ownership positions in private companies and is attempting to nationalize the health care industry. The government manufactures, produces, and creates nothing in a pure economic sense. The government acts as arbitrator and allocator of existing resources. Tangible resources such as energy, money, or health care are allocated based upon some set of government regulations, priorities, or preferences.

Resource-allocation is primarily driven by political outcome such as captivating voting blocks, backing unions or companies that advance their causes and fund their political campaigns, or providing preferential treatment to specific industries while restricting others. In other words, governments don't rely upon free-market mechanisms like supply, demand, and price signals to allocate resources.

The anthropogenic global warming scandal illustrates how leftist ideologues in the government, environmental, scientific, and academic communities and non-governmental organizations work in concert to ensure a specific outcome: worldwide acceptance of AGW. Leftist ideologues have influenced scientists, falsified data, broken laws, and conspired with other entities to ensure AGW's acceptance. Moreover, government policy based on AGW acceptance provides an opportunity to institute new laws and regulations ensuring the leftist's outcomes is successfully implemented. American Thinker's environmental editor Marc Sheppard documented the outright lies, deceptions, and criminal activity involved in the AGW scam. Two of those articles can be found here and here

In a leftist utopia, government would determine winners and losers in the energy industry. Entire sectors and companies would succeed or fail on the whim of a government agency or bureaucrat. Government would regulate how much and what type of energy to consume, the cost of energy, where exploration can occur, what car to drive, what light bulbs to use, and how often to shower or flush a toilet. 

The leftist ideologue elevates the needs of the nation-state over the individual and tramples individual rights and liberties in the process. The leftist would never allow free markets to create and maintain the energy marketplace without the leftist's own influence. Instead, the leftist conjures up the man-made disaster known as AGW. Naturally, the leftist ideologue fears free-market capitalism because it threatens his ideology.

A conservative knows that government's role is limited and that government institutes those laws and regulations necessary for the free market to transcend it. The free market determines the outcomes -- the winners and losers -- rather than the government. A conservative insists that the scientific study of AGW is a repeatable and reliable process, conducted by multiple independent and competing entities, including peer-reviewed data and results. Only then can any government, NGO, company, or person assess and determine an appropriate course of action.

Leftist ideologues loathe moral order and religion, especially Christianity. Religion provides the basis not only for our Constitution and founding principles, but for many morals and values Americans possess. The leftist believes in multiculturalism and moral relativism. According to author Steven Lukes, moral relativists "hold that moral judgments are relative to their time and place, so that they cannot be objectively justified and so cannot be absolute." The leftist places social, economic, and racial justice above moral order. To the greatest extent possible, leftist ideologues must diminish moral order and religion from the American landscape.

A conservative believes human nature is a constant and that moral truths are permanent. Russell Kirk explains the importance of a moral order:

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society-whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society-no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

The leftist ideologue fears the Constitution. The leftist fears individual responsibility. The leftist fears free-market capitalism. The leftist fears a moral order. The leftist fears absolute truth. In Franklin D. Roosevelt's first inaugural address, he said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The leftist ideology embodies fear.

I think this was a great contrast between liberalism and conservatism, and the fundamental underpinnings of both.  It's also a great illustration of how the foundations of America were set squarely on top of the things that liberalism is actively fighting against.

Something to think about, no?

There's my two cents.

Hopeful Post Of The Day

Seriously, this gives me tremendous hope for the future recovery of this nation (emphasis mine):

The Founders would no doubt be glad to hear this.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

There is, unsurprisingly a big partisan divide, with more than 60 percent of Democrats thinking the government's size means nothing but subsidized lollipops for everyone.

The story is different among Republicans, and the numbers among independents are far closer to the Republican view of the issue than the Democratic:

63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

In other news, Democrats are moving ahead with a giant expansion of the federal government with no bipartisan support, using a process never before used on a big, transformational, entitlement program.

Good luck with independents in '10!

And this is in a CNN poll, no less!

I doubt it's much of a coincidence that 56% also happens to be a very common number in polls showing the level of opposition to DemCare.  I also doubt it's much of a coincidence that 44% is about the number of people who pay no taxes while sucking the life out of 'free' government services.

Just sayin'...


There's my two cents.

Leftists, Liberals, And America-Haters, You'll HATE This Post...Everyone Else: GOOD NEWS!

Andy McCarthy reports (emphasis mine):

After a lot of huffing and puffing, about the need to add more civil liberties protections to a law already teeming with them, the Democrat-controlled Senate quietly voted to extend the three Patriot Act provisions that would have expired without reauthorization. Although beating back Patriot and its sensible national security provisions has been a rallying cry for the Left, Senate Democrats agreed to a clean reauthorization on a voice-vote. The New York Times managed just a paragraph, culled from the AP wire, to report the extension.  Why so quiet? There are a couple of reasons, I suspect, and Michelle Malkin — ever on the case — gives us both of them.

First, as Rep.Pete King (R-NY) points out, the Patriot Act surveillance measures were critical to the FBI's ability to break the case against Najibullah Zazi, who wanted to mark the eighth anniversary of 9/11 by bombing New York City. As I noted in a column earlier this week, the Obama administration is dubiously using the Zazi case as a testament to the effectiveness of the civilian justice system in countering "violent extremism" (wouldn't want to use the I-word or the T-word). So it's bad timing to be dumping on Patriot.

Second, Michelle adds, is the leadership of the anti-Patriot movement: CAIR. Who wouldn't want to be associated on a terrori "violent extremism "issue with a Muslim Brotherhood front, created for the purpose of promoting Hamas under the camouflage of "civil rights," that was recently alleged and shown to be a co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing case? Laughably, CAIR alleges that the Patriot Act is "undermining the integration" of the Muslim community in the U.S. The last thing CAIR is interested in is integrating the Muslim community. To the contrary, CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood groups pursue a strategy of voluntary apartheid, the goal of which is to set up Islamic enclaves living under sharia law — the very strategy that is now dis-integrating Europe.

In any event, kudos go not just to Pete King but to others, including Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who worked diligently to get Patriot re-authorized.  Sen. Sessions put out this statement last night:

The PATRIOT Act is a bipartisan bill that has helped save countless lives by equipping our national security community with the tools it needs to keep America safe. Recent terror attacks, such as those at Ft. Hood and on Christmas Day, demonstrate just how severe of a threat we are facing. There is simply no reason to weaken the PATRIOT Act—and every reason not to. This extension keeps PATRIOT's security measures in place and demonstrates that there is a growing recognition that these crucial provisions must be preserved. We are now one step closer to what is needed: a full, long-term reauthorization.

 

Sen. Sessions, it should be noted, tried along with Senators Kit Bond (R-MO) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to get Patriot reauthorized for four years. In the event, it was only reauthorized for one. Obviously, Democrats decided the timing was bad now, but they'll be back yet again next year to try to gut the contested provisions.

 

That goes to show just how lunatic they are on security issues. To sensible people, there is absolutely nothing objectionable about the three Patriot powers in question. One is roving wiretaps, which criminal investigators have been using for years so that they don't need to get a new court order every time a suspect changes phones. Another is the business records provision — the Left sometimes calls it the "library records" provision even though library records are not mentioned in it — which simply allows national-security agents to collect information on terrorist suspects almost (but not quite) as easily as criminal investigators can. And finally, there is the "lone wolf" law (not part of the original Patriot Act but now tied to it), which allows agents to go after someone as to whom the evidence that he is a terrorist is strong but the evidence that he is tied to a known terrorist organization is weak.

 

You may ask:  Why should there be any time-limits on the operation of these laws?  Wouldn't we always want our agents to be able to do these things — a year from now, four years from now, or a hundred years from now?  Good questions.


Good questions, indeed.  In fact, that's the single biggest thing that all Americans should consider when deciding which party best protects America.  On the one side, we have a party who, after sustaining the biggest terrorist attack in history on American soil, put into place new measures to secure the nation and combat 21st century terrorism.  Those measures have prevented additional attacks for the past nine years, and that party is constantly fighting to extend those measures even further.  On the other side, we have a party who fought the implementation of those security measures, who worked for the past nine years to undermine those measures through unauthorized leaks and anti-American political rhetoric, and who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to an extension of those measures, and even then it was only because it was a politically inopportune time to kill them.

Now, which side do you want controlling American national security?

There's my two cents.

For Your Enjoyment

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez:






Fake 'Bipartisanship' Summit Reactions

Wow, it was quite a day yesterday! I wasn't able to watch it first-hand, but I've read many accounts of people who did. Here are some of the best highlights to give you an idea of what happened and how it unfolded.

First, some fact checks.

Is it more or less expensive? Obama took both sides of the issue through the course of the summit:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “What The Congressional Budget Office Is Saying Is … Yes, I’m Paying 10% To 13% More Because Instead Of Buying An Apple, I’m Getting An Orange.” “What the Congressional Budget Office is saying is, is that if I now have the opportunity to actually buy a decent package inside the exchange, that costs me about 10% to 13% more but is actually real insurance, then there are going to be a bunch of people who take advantage of that. So yes, I’m paying 10% to 13% more because instead of buying an apple, I’m getting an orange.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, 2/25/10)
-----[later]-----
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “It's Not Factually Accurate. Here's What The Congressional Budget Office Says. The Costs For Families For The Same Type of Coverage That They're Currently Receiving Would Go Down 14 Percent To 20 Percent.” SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): “The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill.” PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No, no, no, no. Let me -- and this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight.” ALEXANDER: “That's my point.” OBAMA: “Well, exactly, so let me -- let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it's not factually accurate. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, 2/25/10)
It's a lot harder to keep straight a pack of lies than a single truth, isn't it?

On cost containment:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Now, The, What We’ve Done Is We’ve Tried To Take Every Single Cost Containment Idea That’s Out There. Every Proposal That Health Care Economists Say Will Reduce Health Care Costs, We’ve Tried To Adopt In The Various Proposals.” (Pres. Obama, Health Care Summit, 2/25/10)
-----
“Obama's Health Plan Does Not Include” Liability Reform Which “Could Save As Much As $54 Billion Over The Next Decade”


“Congressional Budget Analysts Said Friday That Lawmakers Could Save As Much As $54 Billion Over The Next Decade By Imposing An Array Of New Limits On Medical Malpractice Lawsuits -- 10 Times More Than Previously Estimated.” (“Tort Reform Could Save $54 Billion, CBO Says,”The Washington Post.

“The GOP Has Been Pushing A Series Of Modest Changes They Say Could Bring Down Costs And Improve Coverage, Including Tort Reform … Obama's Health Plan Does Not Include Those Republican Proposals.”The Washington Post, 2/22/10) “Instead, the GOP has been pushing a series of modest changes they say could bring down costs and improve coverage, including tort reform and new freedoms for insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines. Obama's health plan does not include those Republican proposals, although White House officials said several times Monday morning that the president will be open to Republican ideas at the meeting on Thursday.” (“Obama Offers New Health-Care Plan,”

On the extent of federal control:

Courtesy of the Senate Policy Committee:

The President just claimed that the new Washington-approved standards set by federal bureaucrats would apply ONLY to individual plans on the exchange. However, the President’s own proposal would extend new mandates to ALL policies, including “grandfathered” insurance plans. That will require federal bureaucrats in Washington to determine, for instance, what constitutes “proven preventive coverage” for purposes of setting cost-sharing levels, as outlined in the paragraph below. Again, if you like your current plan, Washington bureaucrats will make you pay more for it – if those bureaucrats ever let you keep that coverage in the first place…
On the opposition:

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: “I am always reluctant after being here 37 years to tell people what the American people think. I think it requires a little bit of humility to be able to know what the American people think. And I don’t.” (Vice President Biden, Health Care Summit, 2/25/10)

-----

QUINNIPIAC: “American Voters Still Disapprove 54 - 35 Percent Of Obama's Health Care Reform Plan, but they say 52 - 44 percent they want Congress and the President to keep trying on health care reform rather than giving up and moving on to other matters.” (“U.S. Voters Split On Obama, Down On Everyone Else, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds,” Quinnipiac, 2/11/10)

RASMUSSEN:
“Forty-One Percent (41% ) Of Voters Favor The Proposed Health Care Plan, While 56% Oppose It.” (“51% Fear Government More Than Private Health Insurers,” Rasmussen, 2/24/10

PPP: “50% Of Voters Say They’re Opposed To Barack Obama’s Health Care Plan With 39% In Support.” (“Major Divides On Health Care, DADT,” Public Policy Polling, 2/17/10)

PEW: “More Americans Continue To Generally Oppose (50%) Than Generally Favor (38%) The Health Care Bills Being Discussed In Congress.” (“Obama’s Ratings Are Flat, Wall Street’s Are Abysmal,” Pew, 2/12/10)

RealClearPolitics recently stated that an average of dozens of major polls shows opposition of around 11 points.

On reconciliation:

[Republican] Sen. Lamar Alexander, during his opening remarks at the White House health care summit, called on President Obama and Democrats to renounce the use of reconciliation to ram through a bill on a purely partisan basis. Alexander said it was important first step toward Obama's stated goal of having Republicans and Democrats work together on legislation.

President Obama did not respond to Alexander's request, but instead called on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to make their opening statements.

Americans oppose the use of reconciliation to pass a health care bill by a 52 percent to 39 percent margin, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll.

UPDATE: Harry Reid says, "Nobody is talking about reconciliation," but then makes the case that it's done all the time.

Daniel Foster helpfully points out: "...except the 20-plus Senators and 100-plus House members who have signed letters advocating its use." Oh, and there's this:

Democrats will finish their health reform efforts within the next two months by using a majority-vote maneuver in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.

Reid said that congressional Democrats would likely opt for a procedural tactic in the Senate allowing the upper chamber to make final changes to its healthcare bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster.

"I've had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff, and Speaker Pelosi," Reid said during an appearance Friday evening on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" in Nevada. "And we're really trying to move forward on this."

Senator, are you really that stupid, or do you think the rest of us are that stupid? Or are you just an outright bald-faced liar?

On John McCain:

ABC News notes this exchange between former campaign adversaries Barack Obama and John McCain, which will probably end up being the headline out of the summit, but it revealed something beyond sore egos from '08:

McCain criticized the president’s bill and brought up the promise then-Sen. Obama made and did not keep to hold the previous year’s negotiations for the bill in front of C-SPAN cameras.

“Both of us during the campaign promised change in Washington,” McCain said. “In fact, eight times (as a candidate) you said that negotiations on health care reform would be broadcast on C-SPAN cameras. I'm glad that more than a year later they are, here. Unfortunately, this product was not produced in that fashion, it was produced behind closed doors.”

McCain continued saying the American people “want us to go back to the beginning. They want us not to do this kind of legislation. They want us to sit down together and do what’s best for all Americans, not just for some people who live in Florida or who happen to live in other favored states. They want a uniform treatment of all Americans.” He suggested “the special deals for the special interests and favored few” should be removed from the bill.

“Let me just make this point, John, because we’re not campaigning anymore,” the president said. “The election’s over.”

“I am reminded of that every day,” McCain said, forcing a smile.

Improbably, Obama ended up sounding like his was the sorer ego in the fight. The exchange came after Obama had tried to cut off McCain, and McCain had steamed ahead. What was more telling than the echoes of 2008, however, was which of McCain's concerns Obama answered and which he didnt.

McCain has the facts on his side.
So was this really a bipartisan summit? Hm, well, guess how much time each party was allowed to speak at this 'bipartisan' summit?
Obama: 119 minutes
Dems: 114 minutes
Reps: 110 minutes
Wow, the GOP got a whole third of the time to speak! How nice of The One to allow them that much. Isn't it typical, too, that this summit was all about him? He said as much when he declared that he was okay to talk the most because, in his words: "I'm the President." Watch the arrogance for yourself:



How very bipartisan of him.

In case you are interested in the vast and various ways in which DemCare will take over your health care decisions, here's a list of 159 ways. That's 159 too many, if you ask me.

The Joint Committee on Taxation says that, according to their analysis, Obama's plan amounts to a $414 billion tax hike. Can't wait for that one!

Oh, and Obama ended the day with a threat, too. Classy. And so very bipartisan of him. Did I mention this was a bipartisan summit?

It was also very disingenuous of Obama to scold Rep. Eric Cantor for having the Senate bill -- all 2,400 pages of it -- sitting on the desk in front of him. It was a prop, you see, and those are undesirable. Never mind that everyone in the room know the entire summit was a giant prop for Obama, of course.

All in all, it was a shockingly impressive performance by the GOP, so much so that even the liberal punditry were saying things like it was the best day the Republicans had had in years.

Most conservative pundits are pretty universally agreed that this trap that Obama set to make the Republican party look like petty obstructionists backfired. The Dems looked petty, angry, and churlish, rolling out sob story after sob story of people who supposedly needed health care rather than addressing the substance of the issues and the bills in question.
The strategy employed by the GOP revolved largely around reading sections of the Democrat bills, then slicing and dicing them to pieces with facts and questions that the Dems couldn't -- or wouldn't -- answer. In fact, on many of them, Obama looked distinctly uncomfortable and rushed to interrupt the GOP, or otherwise directed the conversation in an abruptly new direction.

The difference was so pronounced that Rush Limbaugh, one of the leading voices of opposition to the GOP even showing up at this summit, announced officially on the air that he was wrong, and that the GOP was in fact correct to show up, they came to play hardball, and they knocked it out of the park. He, too, suggested that the whole day ended up as a gigantic backfire on Obama and the Dems.

The star of the day was Rep. Paul Ryan, who led an all-out assault on DemCare using common sense and plain language. Watch a few clips of his brilliance...it really is worth your time:






This is precisely the message that needs to get communicated to the American people. Given the media's blatant bias against the Republican party, Obama unwittingly gave them their first widely viewed opportunity to share their side of debate, and boy, did they kick some serious...uh...donkey. For all their faults, they seemingly carried the day, and did a world of damage to the effort to paint them poorly on DemCare.

Of course, Obama and the Dems may go ahead and push for reconciliation, anyway. We'll know soon enough. If that happens, that's when it becomes our turn to make the final push to kill it for good. Get ready...it's coming.

There's my two cents.


Related Reading:
Heritage's running analysis of the summit
Heritage responds to the summit
What didn't get said at the summit
The Sham-wow summit
Obama's campaign wing (OFA) targets talk radio, attempting to flood big-name programs with calls spouting their talking points

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Daily Must-Reads

Another Obama miracle: Lending Drops at 'Epic Pace', Past Due Loans at Record High, 30% of Mortgages at Risk

Dem leader Rangel found guilty of ethics violations.
Genuine shocker: Obama fulfills campaign promise of lowering the oceans!!!  (just not for any reason he likes...)

A no-cost stimulus that can create real jobs.

Obama's 'safe school czar' gets $400 million to brainwash schoolchildren into deviant sexual behavior.

Another Obama foreign policy failure: sorry, allies, we're not going to back you up.

Guess who a bunch of Obama Justice Department lawyers have defended?  You guessed it: terrorists!

Stimulus Stacking

You may have heard the Obama administration trumpeting a recent CBO report showing that the stimulus plan saved or created 1.5 million jobs.  Don't buy it:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has produced a new report [2] estimating that the $862 billion stimulus has thus far saved or created 1.5 million jobs.

Yet the CBO's calculations are not based on actually observing the economy's recent performance. Rather, they used an economic model that was programmed to assume that stimulus spending automatically creates jobs—thus guaranteeing their result.

Logicians call this the begging-the-question fallacy. Mathematicians call it assuming what you are trying to prove.

The CBO model started by automatically assuming that government spending increases GDP by pre-set multipliers, such as:

  • Every $1 of government spending that directly purchases goods and services ultimately raises the GDP by $1.75;
  • Every $1 of government spending sent to state and local governments for infrastructure ultimately raises GDP by $1.75;
  • Every $1 of government spending sent to state and local governments for non-infrastructure spending ultimately raises GDP by $1.25; and
  • Every $1 of government spending sent to an individual as a transfer payment ultimately raises GDP by $1.45.

(note that all CBO figures in this post represent the midpoint between their high and low estimates)

Then CBO plugged the stimulus provisions into the multipliers above, came up with a total increase in gross domestic product (GDP) of 2.6 percent, and then converted that added GDP into 1.5 million jobs.

The problem here is obvious. Once CBO decided to assume that every dollar of government spending increased GDP by the multipliers above, its conclusion that the stimulus saved jobs was pre-ordained. The economy could have lost 10 million jobs and the model still would have said that without the stimulus it would have lost 11.5 million jobs.

The debate over the efficacy of Keynesian stimulus is essentially a debate over the correct multipliers. Some believe the multipliers are high [3], others believe they are as low as zero [4] (or even negative). Testing the stimulus requires testing the multipliers. Yet by simply assuming large multipliers, CBO effectively pre-ordained its conclusion that the stimulus worked, regardless of what actually happened in the economy.

No matter how many times they trot out the same old catch phrases and pound the podium, reality always eventually wins out.  If nothing else, the sheer number of Americans who have lost their jobs in the past 18 months will eventually swamp the rhetoric.

Facts are stubborn things, you know, and nothing highlights unpleasant facts like angry, hungry, scared, out-of-work people.  Somehow, I'm pretty sure that all those millions of unemployed Americans aren't going to get suckered with empty hope-n-change rhetoric this November...and maybe not even in 2012, either.  Let's hope not, because until Obama and the Dems are out of the driver's seat of the American economy, those jobs aren't coming back.

There's my two cents.

About That Climate Change Thing

The hoax is continuing to be unraveled:

“The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming. That conclusion is not a partisan one.”Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. [2]

Forget being partisan or not. That conclusion of settled science isn’t existent. It hasn’t been for a long time, but they are especially bold words in light of the climate scandal involving the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the flaws uncovered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Yesterday, the Senate Minority Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) released a new report that scrutinizes the climate scandal [3] and CRU and its connection with the IPCC and U.S. government policy.

The report delves into the email trail, the IPCC consensus of “unequivocal warming”, the legal and policy issues of Climategate and the EPA’s reliance on the IPCC to make regulatory decisions in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA’s endangerment finding, which took effect January 14, gives the EPA authority under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said:

“So this administration has said, “All right. We couldn’t go it legislatively so we’re going to do it on our own. We’re going to do the damage, inflict the economic damage to this country that would have come under cap and trade the same as if we had been able to pass it.” Now, I think that’s interesting. I would like to say this one thing. The chairman made the statement that the Supreme Court’s mandating this stuff. They’re not mandating a thing. The Supreme Court said you have three choices. You can either, well, either find an endangerment finding or do not find it, or you can say that the science is uncertain.

And I think what we’re going to be asking you to do, during the question and answer time is to find that it’s not certain. You can have an endangerment finding. That can change because you didn’t know at the time that you were basing this on the IPCC flawed science, that the science was flawed. You didn’t believe that, but nonetheless that’s where we are today. We’re going to be making the request, Madam Chairman, that we go back, relook at this and also that — that — and the EPA have their I.G. (Inspector General)looking into this just the same as all the other nations are doing at this time all throughout Europe.”

You can find the full report here [3]. What’s most interesting is that it’s the politicians arguing that the science is settled while the climatologists suggest otherwise. Even Phil Jones, former director of the East Anglia’s CRU admitted [4], “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.”

The EPA needs to reevaluate the science before it moves forward on a long road of expensive and expansive [5] environmental regulations.

As it happens, the EPA apparently agrees. Well...kind of:

Let’s wait until the economy recovers a little before we step on it with costly environmental regulations. That was the message from Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson in a response to eight Democratic senators from industrial coal states the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Administrator Jackson said [2] by April she will “take actions to ensure that no stationary source will be required to get a Clean Air Act permit to cover its greenhouse gas emissions in calendar year 2010.”

As the Clean Air Act is currently written, the EPA could regulate sources or establishments that emit 100 or 250 tons or more of a pollutant per year. The EPA is proposing a “tailoring rule” that would amend the CAA so that only entities that emit 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year would be affected. But even the 25,000 ton threshold is subject to change said Jackson: “I expect the threshold for permitting will be substantially higher than the 25,000-ton limit that EPA originally proposed.” These regulations for the largest of emitters are expected to take place between the latter half of 2011 and 2013.

Smaller entities would be exempt from carbon dioxide regulations – for now. Schools, farms, restaurants, hospitals, apartment complexes, churches, and anything with a motor–from motor vehicles to lawnmowers, jet skis, and leaf blowers–could be subject to regulations – but no sooner than 2016 said Jackson.

Although Jackson is delaying the regulatory pain, the business uncertainty the EPA is creating is preventing economic recovery today. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), in a response to Lisa Jackson’s statement, said [3], “Until the specter of command-and-control regulations goes away, it will remain a counterproductive threat hanging over the work that must be done to find common ground.” A December 2009 National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) survey of small and independent business owners asked [4] owners to rank the single most important problem they faced. Behind poor sales, taxes and government regulations/red tape finished second and third, respectively. Government regulations and red tape jumped three spots from a year ago.

Even without regulations, the prospect of them is enough to impose economic harm. Rising uncertainty can drive down investments in riskier projects and prohibit expansion. The EPA may be delaying carbon dioxide regulations but they’re also delaying a quicker economic recovery with looming uncertainty.

Step one here is to thoroughly blow away the notion of man-made global warming (or any kind of man-made climate change). The evidence supports no such 'consensus' or 'settlement', and in fact, appears to prove just the opposite. Step two is to point out that even the Left understands what their plans would do to the American way of life - it would be like detonating a bomb on the economy. For them to hold off on doing what they are almost desperate to do because of economic reasons, it's got to hold tremendously severe ramifications.

If that's the case, wouldn't it be wise to question whether or not it should be done at all?

But don't try to get a liberal to follow this logic. When it comes to ideology, a liberal is perfectly happy to chuck logic out the window...right into the nearest man-made global warming-caused snow drift.

There's my two cents.

Final Pre-Summit DemCare Thoughts

Want to see 'bipartisanship' in action?  Want to know the difference between the strategies of the two sides here?

On the Right, I give you House Minority Leader
John Boehner:

For all the ink spilled over Thursday's health care summit, it really boils down to one question: Who is listening to the American people?

Americans want Washington to scrap this job-killing government takeover of health care and start over with a step-by-step approach that will lower health care costs.

That's not the "Republican" view. It's the view of the American people. They know the bill that is set to be rammed through Congress will cause their health care premiums to go up and the quality of their health care to go down. They're asking their elected leaders in Washington to stop and start over on reforms that reflect the realities families and small businesses face today.

Republicans have offered a commonsense plan squarely focused on lowering costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that it will lower premiums for families and small businesses by as much as 10 percent. All the details are available at HealthCare.GOP.gov.

For his part, President Obama comes to the table with the same massive government takeover of health care that the American people have already rejected. In effect, the president's proposal actually takes the 2,733-page bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve and manages to make it worse. Even more Medicare cuts. Even more tax hikes. Plenty of special-interest deals still in place. A trillion-dollar price tag.

This latest Democrats-only backroom deal snuffed out any chance that this summit could serve as the starting point for a bipartisan consensus. Democrats are instead hoping that this media event can be the gateway to a final push that involves circumventing the will of the people and jamming a bill through using parliamentary tricks.

This is the same arrogance and overreaching that the American people are so fed up with.

Much, much more at the link; the entire column is outstanding.  I highly encourage you to read the whole thing.

On the Left, I give you Senator Chris Dodd:

Sen. Chris Dodd, D.-Conn., who will be among the lawmakers participating, worked a rally of supporters on the eve of Thursday's meeting, scheduled to start at 10 a.m. EST.

"After that meeting, you can either join us or get out of the way," Dodd said.

Yep, that's 'bipartisanship', all right!

As I've mentioned before, the two sides are clearly drawn here: Obama and the Democrats vs. the American people and the Republicans.

There's my two cents.

DemCare Summit Preview

So, the 'bipartisan' summit takes place today. Everyone knows it's pure political theater, and there is no intent whatsoever on the part of Obama to do anything other than berate the GOP and inaccurately portray them as obstructionist.

By pushing DemCare, Obama is ignoring an ever-growing chorus of opposition. In fact,
72% of the American people are now saying that DemCare should be either started over from scratch or just scrapped altogether. But hey, what do all of you stupid people know, in comparison to The One? Go sit down and shut up while he rapes the American economy and takes over your health care.

But it's going to be tough. Dems in the Senate are saying that the House needs to go first. The House is saying that it's going to be even tougher to pass there than in the Senate, and it appears that they're a solid 15 votes short. Why all the finger-pointing? Because everyone knows that a vote for DemCare is a career-ending vote. In case you're interested in exactly why they're between a rock and a hard place (beyond just being directly opposed to the will of the American people, I mean), this is a great explanation of the machinations of Congress:

Senator Conrad, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said yesterday that reconciliation can only be used if the House passes the Senate bill first. As Sen. Conrad declared, “I don’t know of any way, I don’t know of any way where you can have a reconciliation bill pass before the bill that it is meant to reconcile passes.” Neither do I.

Then, the kicker: “When reminded that House Democrats don’t want to do health care in that order, Conrad said bluntly: ‘Fine, then it’s dead.‘”

Now, the Speaker finds herself in the position of having to pass a bill she says she does not have the votes to pass.

Without passing the Senate bill she can’t pass, the Speaker can’t do reconciliation. (See Sen. Conrad, above.)

OK. Now, this next part is really, really important.

The Speaker and the White House find themselves in this position because of Senator DeMint (R-SC). He insisted that Senator McConnell object to the appointment of the House-Senate Conferees, thus preventing a Conference on the bill.

The inability of the Dems to have a House-Senate Conference then forced the Speaker to have a House floor vote on the Senate bill, which she can’t pass. And there the process has been stuck. Has not moved an inch since Sen. DeMint’s objection. It can’t, she does not have the votes.

The Speaker could fix the Senate bill on the House floor by amendment, then pass the Senate bill amended and fixed, but then it would have to go back to the Senate, where it would have to get 60 yes votes, or die. Since it will not get 60 votes ever again in the Senate, it will die — if the Speaker tries the amend the Senate bill on the House floor and send it back to the Senate route.

When Senator DeMint (R-SC) denied the Speaker the ability to fix the bill in Conference, he put the Speaker and the White House in their current box. If there had been a House-Senate Conference, then the House could have fixed the bill without a floor vote and the bill could have changed, without having to send it back to the Senate to face 60 vote margins.

But now, they can’t have a conference, and the Speaker and the White House must pass the unpassable Senate bill, in order to even try reconciliation.

When the Democrats finally admit ObamaCare is dead, historians should note, this is the single act that killed it. And it was such an artistic assassination of the bill.

Can you imagine how different things might have been if DeMint was the leader of the Republicans in the Senate? Regardless, let's hope this does indeed kill the bill.

It is interesting to note that Obama and the Dems are doing precisely the same thing they decried just a few years ago. Back when the Republican party had the White House and Congress, these same Dems howled about how the Founders would have been profoundly upset to learn that a majority would dare attempt to use reconciliation to make policy changes. ***GASP*** The SHAME of such a thing! Of course, they were right then - the Founders would be profoundly upset at such an abuse of the reconciliation process. Of course, now that they hold the White House and Congress, it doesn't seem to be any kind of a stumbling block. Hmmm...

So, if they pass DemCare, what will that mean for you and me? Taxes, taxes, taxes. We will see higher taxes on payroll, higher taxes on Medicare, higher taxes on so-called Cadillac health care plans, higher taxes on medical devices,
higher taxes on drugs, higher taxes on insurance costs, and more. The only thing that will be lower is on the amount you can put into your own FSA or HSA account. Oh, and there will be the small matter of government bureaucrats stepping in between you and your doctor. Other than that, it'll be a great deal!

For an idea of just how great, let's once again look at our friends across the pond who already have the kind of health care system that Obama wants to implement here:

The London Times reports on England's latest medical scandal:

Patients were routinely neglected or left "sobbing and humiliated" by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.

An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs. ...

Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses "left a lot to be desired".

Attitudes under socialism generally leave a lot to be desired.

The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that "unimaginable" suffering had been caused.

Unimaginable suffering--that pretty much sums up government-controlled medicine. That's our future, though, if the Democrats get their way. They care only about their own power, not about the quality of your medical care.

As we brace for the dog-and-pony show of the summit, let's take a few moments to review what Ronald Reagan said several decades ago about government health care. This is outstanding stuff and I can't recommend it highly enough:



Stay tuned for details of the dog-and-pony show.

There's my two cents.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Daily Must-Reads

Jeffrey Lord writes a very interesting column at The American Spectator about the GOP and abortion, including the assertion that some people are pro-life for reasons other than religion by examining how slavery was treated by Lincoln and the Supreme Court at the time.  Along the way, Lord provides a terrific explanation of the problem of a too-strong federal government that is very similar to my opposition to smoking bans while being a non-smoker.  Check it out.

American Thinker is one of the best sites on the Internet for reasoned conservative political commentary.  The biggest problem I have with them is that everything they put out is excellent, and really should be read widely.  I just can't keep up!  Here are a few of the recent good ones that are all worth checking out:
     - Al Gore is lying low -- for good reason
     - What do you expect with Obama?
     - What do Muslim nations think about terrorism?
     - How to cut the budget
     - The Incontestable Tenets of the Green Church
     - What Americans don't understand about DemCare
     - How the Left reveals itself
     - President Incompetent
     - Planning to fail

Is our government really broken?

Obama whines, "I'm not a socialist!"  Uh...prove it.

Just one failure of a year in, and he's already planning his re-election campaign.

John Yoo: I did this for you, too.

Institutionalizing Racism To Divide The Country, Dangerously Irresponsible Foreign Policy, And Lying Through Clenched Teeth

This is a simple equation, like 1+1+1=3.

Bye Bye Hawaii

Last night, Neil Abercrombie got his farewell gift from the House, a vote on their version of the Akaka bill, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (six Republicans voted for it). Over in the Senate, Lamar Alexander issued an immediate push-back:

"I'm disappointed that the House of Representatives passed legislation which the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opposes because the bill would 'discriminate on the basis of race.'  The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would create a new sovereign government within our borders based solely on race.  But in America, we say, 'One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'— not 'Many nations, divided by race, with special privileges for some.' I urge the Senate to reject this ill-advised legislation as it has done in the past."

On August 28, 2009, in a letter to members of Congress, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights expressed opposition to the Senate version of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (S. 1101), which it noted is "substantially similar" to legislation rejected by the Senate on June 8, 2006.  In its letter, the Commission quoted its 2006 report opposing the bill because it "would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."


How 'bout that nuclear Iran?

When you think of a nuclear Iran, you probably think of atomic bombs or nuclear-tipped missiles. But few people think about the implications of an Iranian nuclear umbrella providing a cover for terrorism and subversion.

At Israel's recent Jerusalem Conference, Dr. Dore Gold, former ambassador from Israel to the United Nations, predicted a possible 2012-2014 scenario in which the United States might face an attack from Shiite or Sunni terror groups. Could America respond to such an attack, as it did after 9/11, if it occurs under the threat of a nuclear Iran?

According to Gold, prevention of a nuclear Iran isn't just about the security of Israel, nor does it concern only the free flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

Prevention of a nuclear Iran has implications in the overall war against radical Islamist terrorism. And, because Iran has shown that it has the ability to provide support and sanctuary for both Shiite and Sunni groups, the effects of a nuclear Iran are huge.

He explained that at the time of 9/11, the U.S. security establishment stated that they would go after terrorist regimes, and they did. It was an important demonstration that made it clear that if a country supported terrorism, there would be a price to pay. 

However, what about a future era of nuclear proliferation, when many Arab states try to acquire a nuclear weapon as an act of self-defense in the face of a threatening nuclear Persian Empire?


You lie like a rug

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." That is what Barack Obama promised the American people when he was asking for our votes during his 2008 election campaign. Not just this one time, but over and over throughout the campaign. You could ask Joe the Plumber.

Truly, this pledge was the centerpiece of his 2008 election success. I remember during one Presidential debate, Obama hotly disputed McCain's charge that Obama would run up spending so much that he would inevitably bury voters with tax increases. Obama responded by reiterating the above no tax increase pledge, and insisted further that for those making less than $200,000 per year, "your taxes will go down," emphasizing the point with a downward sweeping motion of his arm.

But after only one year in office, in a shocking Business Week interview on February 9, President Obama cavalierly dismissed these core campaign pledges. In response to a question asking, "If your deficit commission comes back and says we would recommend raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000 a year, would you accept that as part of a larger deal?" President Obama said,

"I don't want to prejudge the commission because the whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table, and let's see what folks can come up with. What I want to do is to be completely agnostic in terms of solutions."

Looks to me like President Obama owes John McCain an apology. ...

Included in that political system unable to deal with those necessary big, tough choices is President Obama, who greatly exacerbated the deficit problem with his nearly $1 trillion, failed "stimulus" package just a year ago, followed just a few weeks later by the $400 billion omnibus spending bill, followed by his budget providing for an 18% increase in total federal spending in just one year, and for a one-third increase in federal welfare spending over two years. After those big, tough choices, with the "stimulus" money mostly flowing in this election year to try to buy votes, President Obama is now "agnostic" on tax increases on working people. Isn't this exactly what John McCain said would happen? ...

"The whole point" of President Obama's Commission is precisely to obtain political cover to abandon his central 2008 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He can then say that it wasn't his idea. The "experts" on the Commission made him do it, right after he says the tax increase is actually really Bush's fault.

None of the rest of us should let him get away with that garbage.


Thus, the answer is: YOU SUCK!!!

Voter unhappiness with Congress has reached the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports as 71% now say the legislature is doing a poor job.

That's up ten points from the previous high of 61% reached a month ago.

Only 10% of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

Nearly half of Democratic voters (48%) now give Congress a poor rating, up 17 points since January. The vast majority of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party also give Congress poor ratings.

Let the election fun begin.

There's my two cents.

A Few Important Updates

These things are all important, so I wanted to pass them along to you.

Killing proven defense technology

Heritage’s James Carafano writes about the Airborne Laser, “a defensive weapon once ridiculed as science fiction”:

Skeptics even persuaded the Obama administration to slot the airborne laser for the ninth circle of procurement hell — a pit for dead-end research and development programs.

The Airborne Laser (ABL) has now been tested, and:

It is proven.

But don't expect high-fiving in the White House. The administration already passed on the option to build a second test aircraft. Rather than add the ABL to the military's arsenal, the administration seems more than willing to let the project end as a successful science experiment.

An ABL could help neutralize the threat of “Scud in a bucket,” which, Jim says, in many ways is “the ultimate weapon”:

It could sail close to U.S. waters without being subject to inspection by the Coast Guard or Customs. The enemy could fire the missile and scuttle the ship, leaving no record of who launched the attack.

If Iran has one missile and nuclear weapon, it might have two. It could detonate one over New York in a low-altitude air burst that would kill up to a half-million and cripple Manhattan forever.

Iran could fire a second at high altitude over the mid-Atlantic states, creating an electro-magnetic pulse that would take down a large portion of the national grid and plunge Washington, D.C., into permanent darkness.

America would be crippled in a flash, with no obvious enemy at which to shoot back.

So, naturally, Obama kills the program.


Covering lies with more lies
On April 23, 2009, the Far Left Speaker denied she was told that waterboarding or other “illegal” interrogation methods were being used on terrorist detainees.
She lied.

Today Speaker Pelosi stood by her lie. She said she was never told that waterboarding was being used on terrorist detainees even though newly released documents prove again that she knew about the agency’s use of harsh interrogation practices on captured terrorists.
FOX News
reported:

Prodded by the release of dozens of declassified CIA documents, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reasserted her longstanding position about what she knew regarding the agency’s use of harsh interrogation practices.

“I have never been briefed by the CIA or anyone else on the subject of those interrogations, to the extent that they were being used,” the California Democrat told reporters Tuesday. “We were only briefed that there were lawyers in the Justice Department that thought they were legal, period.”

...

The documents show Pelosi was briefed about “ongoing interrogations of Abu Zubaydah” on April 24, 2002, just weeks after the top Al Qaeda suspect was captured in Pakistan. Previously, Pelosi asserted the 2002 briefing covered only “interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future.”

...

CIA records show that during the September 2002 briefing, Pelosi and others were given “a description of the particular enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed” on Zubaydah.

Lies upon lies upon lies, and all were committed purely for political reasons, at the expense of national security.


Government Motors commences attack on Toyota

It’s officially a full-court press:

Leading Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee said Monday that Toyota relied on a flawed study in dismissing the notion that computer issues could be at fault for sticking accelerator pedals, and then made misleading statements about the repairs.

The comments, from Henry A. Waxman, chairman of the committee, and Bart Stupak, a subcommittee chairman, were made in an 11-page letter to James E. Lentz III, the president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. The letter was released Monday on the eve of the committee’s hearing on the Toyota recalls, one of three scheduled.

Verdict first, trial after — but it does not stop there. Toyota is now also under investigation by Securities and Exchange Commission and United States attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

There are a lot of shady studies and gigantic conflicts of interest involved here. I'm sure it's an amazing coincidence that Toyota is the biggest competitor to Government Motors.


You want government spying? Here it is.

Obama Administration: We Need Warrantless Tracking of You By Cell-Phone Signal, and There's No Fourth Amendment Right to Be Free of Government Tracking

Unbelievable.

Truly, unbelievable.

Note that he seeks warrantless access to cell-tower triangulation which pinpoints your every move.

I have no problem with getting this information with a warrant.

But warrantless? He thinks the government should be able to compel a service provider to turn over its records of your every movement, as figured (within 50 meters, and surely that will only get more precise) by triangulation, with no warrant whatsoever?

Just because a government investigator wants that information?

Bear in mind this is the same crew that screams about the Patriot Act -- and now they want to follow every citizen in real-time without a warrant?

Are you kidding me?

I have a right to not have my property rifled through, but I have no right to expect I can walk around freely without constant government monitoring? That's a right I don't have?

Ahem...


Show of hands? That's what I thought.

There's my two cents.