Obama's TR Moment

What’s new today

Story #1 has Dr. Krauthammer hammering BHO.  #2 show BHO claiming an unemployment insurance extension and extending the tax cut on Social Security will create more jobs than the Keystone pipeline (estimated jobs 200,000).  Since both of those are extension, I’m not sure how they will create any new jobs!  #3 has Republicans questioning a two month gap in information about SC Justice Kagan.  #4 is my teaching moment today.  A very interesting discussion of the role of government.  #5 is something to keep your eye on.  Will Hillary challenge Obama?  #6 has Peggy Noonan looking at Newt Gingrich.  Another article worth your viewing and look at my comments as well. #7 is an article of fracking.  Here’s a environmentalist nightmare.  It appears to be completely safe and delivers fossil fuels that are relatively clean, but somehow they just can’t back it.  #8 is a repudiation by PolitiFact of a Jon Stewart claim about Christmas.  #9 is a fun look at 19 of life’s little victories. 

1.  Obama Explains it all to You

In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that IF IN THREE YEARS HE HADN’T ALLEVIATED THE NATION’S ECONOMIC PAIN, HE’D BE A “ONE-TERM PROPOSITION.”

When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track” and even Bill Clinton calls the economy “lousy,” how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case

It seems that HE AND HIS POLICIES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS. Sure, presidents are ordinarily held accountable for economic growth, unemployment, national indebtedness (see Obama, above). But not this time. RESPONSIBILITY, YOU SEE, LIES WITH THE RICH.

Or, as the philosophers of Zuccotti Park call them, the 1 percent. For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. THE “BREATHTAKING GREED OF A FEW” IS CRUSHING THE MIDDLE CLASS. If only the rich paid their “fair share,” the middle class would have a chance. Otherwise, government won’t have enough funds to “invest” in education and innovation, the golden path to the sunny uplands of economic growth and opportunity.

Where to begin? A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It’s mis-investing….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-campaign-for-class-resentment/2011/12/08/gIQApYDagO_story.html

Krauthammer once again nails it.  Obama is a member of the political class with only good intentions in their heart so anything that goes wrong is not their fault. 

2.  Obamanomics:  Oh-Oh. 

… President Obama said that he will delay his vacation and keep Congress in session until the passage of his desired payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits extension -- two proposals that Obama said would create more jobs than the Keystone XL pipeline that his administration recently delayed.

"I would not ask anyone to do something I'm not willing to do myself," Obama said when asked if he would go on vacation while keeping Congress in Washington D.C. "We are going to stay here as long as it takes [to get unemployment extended and pass the payroll tax cut]."

As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "HOWEVER MANY JOBS MIGHT BE GENERATED BY A KEYSTONE PIPELINE," HE SAID, "THEY'RE GOING TO BE A LOT FEWER THAN THE JOBS THAT ARE CREATED BY EXTENDING THE PAYROLL TAX CUT AND EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE."

For the record, it is estimated that Keystone would create about 200,000 jobs.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/obama_echoes_pelosi_-_unemployment_benefits_create_jobs.html#ixzz1g2PBvciE

Obama must go.  The man is delusional. 

3.   GOP Questions Two Month Gap on Kagan’s history

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee said Thursday the Obama administration is fueling speculation about Justice Kagan ’s impartiality because IT WON’T TURN OVER DOCUMENTS DETAILING HER ROLE IN CRAFTING THE LEGAL STRATEGY TO DEFEND THE HEALTH CARE LAW.

Rep.Lamar Smith, the committee chairman, told Attorney General Eric Holder   that emails show Justice Kagan took an interest in the case in January 2010, when she was solicitor general, and he demanded to know WHAT ROLE SHE PLAYED BETWEEN THEN AND MARCH 2010, when President Obama tapped her to sit on the high court.

“The issue is how involved was she in health care discussions between Jan. 8 and March 5. Just as President Nixon had an 18½-minute gap, does Ms Kagan have a two-month gap?” Mr. Smith said.

Conservative groups have called for Justice Kagan to recuse herself from ruling on the health care case, which the Supreme Court last month said it will consider next year.

Mr. Smith has requested a fuller explanation of Justice Kagan’s role. HE SAID THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DENIED HIS REQUEST, BUT NEVER CITED ANY LEGAL PRIVILEGE TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION.

Mr. Holder told the committee they tried to wall off Justice Kagan from conversations once they knew she was under consideration for the Supreme Court.  

“My memory is, whenever we had conversations about the health care bill, then-Solicitor General Kagan was not present,” he said.

But MR.SMITH SAID THAT WALLING OFF WOULDN’T HAVE OCCURRED UNTIL MARCH, LEAVING THE TWO-MONTH GAP HE QUESTIONED.

Mr.Holder also again declined to cite a specific legal privilege that would allow him to withhold documents or prevent committee investigators from interviewing department employees about Justice Kagan’s involvement. Instead, the attorney general said he has “separation of powers” concerns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/8/gop-questions-two-month-gap-kagans-health-care-inv/

4.  The Role of Government

….Public Choice Theorists, like Nobel Laureate James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, provided an alternative view of government that was consistent with that of the Founders. THEY SAW GOVERNMENT AS JUST ANOTHER INSTITUTION IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS POPULATED BY SELF-INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS. As such, it would be an active player in the economy and society to the extent possible.

So long as these individuals could benefit from outcomes, GOVERNMENT COULD NOT BE AN HONEST BROKER. IN THEIR VIEW, THOSE WHO "SERVE" ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE "GREEDY" BUSINESSMAN WHO POLITICIANS REGULARLY CONDEMN.

This view of human nature drove the Founders to develop The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the separation of powers in an attempt to contain misbehavior by government. Public Choice theory is merely a modern intellectual affirmation of what our educated Founders knew two and one-half centuries ago.

GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARILY RUN BY SELF-INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS UNTIL WE DISCOVER A WAY TO BREED AND ELECT ANGELS. FRIEDRICH HAYEK, AMONG OTHERS, ARGUED THAT A BIASED PROCESS ATTRACTS AND ENABLES THE "WORST" TO SUCCEED IN GOVERNMENT. (See "The Road to Serfdom" for his reasoning).

Passive and unbiased government is not impossible, merely highly improbable. Noble phrases like "public service" should be seen as modern day examples of what Nock saw as self-serving propaganda.

What Does This Mean?

Public Choice theorists deal with the difficulties of providing the proper incentives and disincentives to prevent self interest from exploiting positions in government. Charles R. Anderson recently used a taxonomy that is consistent with Public Choice and history. HE DESCRIBED TWO ORIENTATION OF GOVERNMENT -- PRINCIPLED VERSUS PRAGMATIC.

Mr. Anderson's description of the two follows:

1) A government which is HIGHLY LIMITED BY PRINCIPLE IN POWER AND SCOPE TO THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE EQUAL, SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, the ownership of one's own mind and body, and the pursuit of personal happiness. This is the legitimate government envisioned by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

2) A so-called PRAGMATIC GOVERNMENT NOT RESTRICTED BY PRINCIPLE TO A LIMITED SCOPE AND WITH FEW POWERS WHICH IS INCLINED TO BESTOW SPECIAL PRIVILEGES ON SPECIAL INTERESTS. Such a government may be a democracy, an oligarchy, a one-party state, or a dictatorship and IT MUST OF NECESSITY TRAMPLE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE OUR PERSONAL INTERESTS ARE TOO DIVERSE FOR GOVERNMENT TO FOSTER ALL OF OUR INTERESTS. It must pick which interests it will favor and which it will suppress. It violates the principle that government should do no harm….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/government_of_the_elites_by_the_elites_and_for_the_elites.html#ixzz1g2MjJpVf

Somehow when someone goes to work for the government they become chaste and good.  And if they leave government they become stupid and evil.  Just look at John Corzine as an example. 

5.  Will Hill Challenge O?

Jimmy Carter was not just defeated by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. Carter, the president who could easily be confused with his own floppy sweater, WAS FIRST KNOCKED DOWN BY SMILIN' TED KENNEDY, who was entitled to be president because he was a Kennedy. (Don't ask, this is how Democrats think.) Kennedy ran against Carter because the other Democrats were less prone to suicide than they are today. They still lost big.

OBAMA STARTED THE FIGHT THREE YEARS AGO, IN THE MINDS OF FEMINISTS, BY TARRING HILLARY AND BILL AS "RACISTS." Today we are getting media leaks from the Clintons: “I don’t know what the future holds” said Bill the other day, going wink, wink, nudge, nudge, and looking sincere. LIBERAL SNITCH PAUL BEDARD SAID IT MORE CLEARLY IN THE US NEWS BLOG: HILLARY CAMPAIGN CONSPICOUSLY EMERGES.

This could become a grudge match. You can call smear good and honorable Americans with the racist brush all you want, but just don't call another Demagogue a racist. It's not polite. They have ways of making you pay. And feminists are the nastiest of them all. Harvard's left feminists ate President Larry Summers for breakfast one day. And

Hillary's supporters have been boiling with rage since she lost to the Chicago Machine….

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/a_hillary_grudge_match_with_bam.html#ixzz1g2PzhLBT

Democrats tend to hope there is a bloody fight between Newt and Mitt and perhaps a third party run by Ron Paul.  But right now, the more likely third party candidate would be Bloomberg and if Hillary gets into it with O, expect a blood bath. 

6.  Noonan on Gingrich

….That's the problem with Newt Gingrich: IT'S ALL TRUE. It's part of the reason so many of those who know him are anxious about the thought of his becoming president. It's also why people are looking at him, thinking about him, considering him as president.

ETHICALLY DUBIOUS? TRUE. INTELLIGENT AND ACCOMPLISHED? TRUE. Has he known breathtaking success and contributed to real reforms in government? Yes. Presided over disasters? Absolutely. CAN HE LEAD? YES. IS HE ERRATIC AND UNRELIABLE AS A LEADER? YES. Egomaniacal? True. Original and focused, harebrained and impulsive—all true. ..

 … Republicans on the ground who view Mr. Gingrich from afar, who neither know nor have worked with him, are more likely to see him this way: "WHO WAS THE LAST PERSON TO ACTUALLY CUT GOVERNMENT? WHO WAS THE LAST PERSON WHO ACTUALLY LED A MOVEMENT THAT BALANCED THE FEDERAL BUDGET? . . . THE LAST TIME THERE WAS TRUE WELFARE REFORM, THE LAST TIME GOVERNMENT WAS CUT, GINGRICH DID IT." That is Rush Limbaugh, who has also criticized Mr. Gingrich.

And that is exactly what I've been hearing from Newt supporters who do not listen to talk radio. They are older voters, they are not all Republicans, and when government last made progress he was part of it. THEY HAVE A VERY PRACTICAL SENSE OF POLITICS NOW. The heroic era of the presidency is dead. They are not looking to like their president or admire him, they just want someone to fix the crisis. The last time helpful things happened in Washington, he was a big part of it. SO THEY MAY HIRE HIM AGAIN. ARE THEY PUT OFF BY HIS SCANDALS? NO. THEY THINK ALL POLITICIANS ARE SCANDALOUS….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577086824255350642.html

Noonan raises a red warning flag but also explains Newt’s appeal.  In reading this it makes me think of Steven Jobs.  Fired from Apple he came back to save the company and created a new future that went way beyond Apple.  He appears to not have been the nicest person around or the easiest to work for, but he was genius.  Could Newt do the same thing especially since we need the country fixed?  Is he worth the gamble? The Republicans will have a big say in this because whoever the Republicans nominate will be the next president of the United States. 

7.   Fracking:  The left tries to make a Mountain out of an Ant Hill

Hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") is the process used by the energy industry to extract immense deposits of oil and natural gas from deep geologic formations that only a few years ago were unreachable. It involves injecting a solution of water and chemicals far underground, typically thousands of feet below groundwater supplies. FRACKING WAS FIRST USED IN OKLAHOMA IN THE 1940S AND IN THE YEARS SINCE HAS BEEN EMPLOYED IN MORE THAN A MILLION OIL AND GAS WELLS ACROSS THE NATION. There is NOT A SINGLE INDEPENDENTLY DOCUMENTED INSTANCE OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION BY FRACKING ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, a fact that was confirmed as recently as May by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson during congressional testimony.

So why did the EPA announce Thursday in a draft report that CHEMICALS "LIKELY" ASSOCIATED WITH FRACKING WERE FOUND AT A DRILLING SITE NEAR PAVILION, WYO.? Big Green activists who are determined to stop fracking will loudly proclaim from every media rooftop in coming days that there is now "proof" that fracking endangers drinking water across America. Here's what these ideologically blinded zealots won't tell you:

The next two sentences in the EPA announcement quoted in the opening paragraph state: "EPA also re-tested private and public drinking water wells in the community. The samples were consistent with CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED IN EARLIER EPA RESULTS RELEASED IN 2010 AND ARE GENERALLY BELOW ESTABLISHED HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS." By "below," the EPA means that chemicals in the groundwater do not exceed acceptable health and safety standards….

….The facts remain as they were stated by Jackson in May: The EPA has not yet documented a single case in which fracking caused groundwater contamination.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/12/here-comes-another-rush-judgment-fracking/1987696#ixzz1g2U1y97F

Fracking is safe.  We have more than 1,000,000 wells fracked and there is absolutely no evidence of environmental damage even when there have been accidents.

8.   Jon Stewart on Christmas—Funny but Wrong

The Rhode Island controversy over Gov. Lincoln Chafee's decision to call the decorated spruce tree in the State House rotunda a "holiday tree" instead of a "Christmas tree" spilled over to Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" program on Dec. 6.

During a segment on the “Tree Fighting Ceremony” that focused on Fox News' assertion that there is a culture war against Christmas, Stewart said, "Perhaps you'd prefer to celebrate Christmas the way our Founding Fathers did."

Then he cut to a video clip from a documentary from the History channel cable network that stated: "On Dec. 25, 1789, the United States Congress sat in session and continued to stay open on Christmas Day for most of the next 67 years."…

… The web page "Dates of Sessions of the Congress, 1789-present" says that the last session of 1789 for both the House and the Senate was Sept. 29. By the time Christmas came around, Congress had been out of session for nearly three months. Both bodies reconvened on the first Monday in January 1790.

The web page also shows that there were three years from 1789 to 1857 when Congress had a formal recess that extended over Christmas Day. But that doesn't mean they were on the job on Dec. 25 during all the remaining years.

To find out, we went through the journals that were the predecessors of The Congressional Record.

So how many times did the House and Senate meet on Christmas Day during the first 68 years of Congress?

Once each….

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/dec/09/jon-stewart/comic-jon-stewart-says-early-congress-met-most-chr/

9.   19 Everyday Victories that you can Enjoy

1.      Whenever I’m waiting for the bus and it stops so that the door is right in front of me.

2.      Getting that popcorn kernel unstuck from in between my gum and tooth.

3.      Go to public bathroom and it’s empty!

4.      When I’m approaching a red light and don’t have to brake before it turns green again…

http://cavemancircus.com/2011/12/07/19-minor-everyday-victories-that-are-way-enjoyable/

What’s your favorite?  Keep reading there are 15 more.

Have Democrats lost their mind?

What’s new today

Stories #1 through #3 relate what we can look forward to in the 2012 election.  #1 lets us know it will be nasty.  #2 tells of how the Democrats are jettisoning the working white man.  #3 explores this move further as the Democrats look to try and become a majority minority party.  #4 discusses the possibility of a third party candidate. #5 related Barney Franks role in the financial crisis. #6 tells of how Barney beat back the repeated warnings by the Bush Whitehouse regarding Fannie and Freddie.  #7 tells how the TEA Party is under investigation after complaining about different treatment they received vs OWS in Richmond VA.  #8 talks of the connection between Hollywood and Hypocrisy.  Even the word Hypocrisy comes from the greek word hypokrisis which means play acting. Our final story #9 explains why Kagan should recuse herself from SCOTUS deliberation on Obamacare. 

1.  Get Ready for a Nasty Election

YOU COULD ALMOST HEAR THE HANDS RUBBING TOGETHER IN GLEE IN PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLITICAL SHOP AT THE FAILURE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL SUPERCOMMITTEE. How the president’s politicos must welcome a new count in the indictment against the “do-nothing Congress.”

The phrase famously originates from the 1948 presidential election, when Harry Truman used it to lambaste a just-elected GOP Congress and claw his way to an upset re-election victory.

Hopeful Democrats think “GIVE ’EM HELL, BARRY” CAN USE THE 1948 TEMPLATE TO OVERCOME

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/ugly_way_to_win_OjIpYxDtvDI3p6byDTRa1M#ixzz1f6TFJRoX

It’s a plan, but it isn’t likely to work.  It’s the economy stupid. 






     2. Obama Jettisons the Old Democratic base

Bear in mind that the group that is being jettisoned was once the backbone of the Democratic Party, just as the big business/country club sets were once the backbone of the Republican Party.

I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but from what I’ve seen around here, THE WHITE WORKING CLASS IS QUITE USED TO FEELING ABANDONED. LIBERALS ARE SEEN AS THE SORT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD NEVER GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY AND WHO DISDAIN BLUE COLLAR JOBS OF ANY KIND, instead gravitating towards elite positions at universities or jobs in government or public policy where they can tell their inferiors what to do. While the universities are filled with the latter, local community colleges are inundated with white working class kids seeking to obtain for themselves what they failed to get from the public schools: basic literacy and numeracy — and job skills which are of actual use in the real world.

Aside from the irony that anyone with a high school degree should have to go to college in order to learn to read and write, A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A VALUABLE REAL-WORLD SKILL IS WELDING. Public school teachers (who reflect the view of the educrat class) tend to hold such “dirty” and “dangerous” work in disdain, and they steer kids away from it. GUIDANCE COUNSELORS ATTEMPT TO PUSH THEM INTO UNIVERSITIES WHERE THEY GO INTO A LIFETIME OF DEBT FOR WORTHLESS DEGREES THAT IMPART ZERO JOB SKILLS. But some of the kids are smarter than that. They realize that if you have a skill that is worth something in the real world, you can actually feed your family.

They also know something that the Occupy movement (often holders of useless degrees) has missed: that THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM’S INSTITUTIONAL BIAS AGAINST PROMOTING REAL WORLD SKILLS HAS LED TO SHORTAGES — IN SOME INSTANCES NOT OF JOBS, BUT OF SKILLED WORKERS TO FILL THEM. SUCH AS WELDERS. JAY LENO EXPLAINS.

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/the-war-between-useless-and-useful/

But you’ll have to follow the link to see Jay.  This is a crisis we’ve inflicted on our children.  Everyone shouldn’t go to college, but everyone should be educated.  It’s time to bring back shop.

3. The Emerging Democratic Minority

Back in 2002, JOHN JUDIS AND RUY TEIXEIRA PUBLISHED A BOOK TITLED "THE EMERGING DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY," IN WHICH THEY ARGUED THAT DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS WERE THE DEMOCRATS' FRIENDS--specifically, that the donks were fated to benefit from rising numbers of "minority voters, including blacks, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans; women voters, especially single, working and highly educated women; and professionals," while "the ranks of white working-class voters will not grow over the next decade," spelling trouble for the GOP.

If history had stopped in 2009, they would have been able to claim vindication. Republicans made modest congressional gains in the 2002 and 2004 elections, and George W. Bush was re-elected decisively though not resoundingly. But 2006 wiped out the GOP's congressional majorities, and 2008 bolstered those of the Democrats. Barack Obama achieved the biggest popular-vote majority of any president in 20 years and of any Democrat in 44 years--that is, since before Kevin Phillips published "The Emerging Democratic Majority," (1969) to which the Judis-Teixeira tome was a rejoinder.

But then in 2010, the tide shifted back. REPUBLICANS MORE THAN MADE UP FOR THEIR 2006-08 HOUSE LOSSES AND WON 24 OF 37 SENATE CONTESTS. THE DEMOCRATS HELD THEIR SENATE MAJORITY, BUT LARGELY BECAUSE 40 OF THEIR SEATS, WON IN 2006 OR 2008, WOULD NOT BE CONTESTED UNTIL 2012 OR 2014.

As 2012 approaches, Teixeira has dusted off his decade-old thesis. He and John Halpin have produced A REPORT FOR THE LEFT-LIBERAL CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS TITLED "THE PATH TO 270: DEMOGRAPHICS VERSUS ECONOMICS IN THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION." The argument is that "demographics" are on President Obama's side, while "economics" are not. (One might summarize the latter point this way: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.")…

…THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS WITH TEIXEIRA AND HALPIN'S "ECONOMICS VS. DEMOGRAPHICS" analysis--one economic and one demographic. For the first, consider Edsall's list of "voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment": "professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists."

Notice anything missing? THIS LIST EXCLUDES NOT ONLY BLUE-COLLAR WORKERS BUT ALSO MOST PRIVATE-SECTOR BUSINESSMEN AND WHITE-COLLAR EMPLOYEES. The only group here that comes mostly from corporate America is "human resources managers"--people whose job consists largely of complying with government employment regulations.

In other words, THE ECONOMIC GROUP THAT IS MOST PRO-OBAMA CONSISTS OF THOSE WHO MAKE THEIR LIVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OFF GOVERNMENT. To some extent, this group's interests are at odds with those of Republican-leaning private-sector workers. But only to some extent. WHEN GOVERNMENT GETS SO BIG AND INTRUSIVE THAT IT SUPPRESSES ECONOMIC GROWTH, IT HURTS THE PUBLIC SECTOR TOO. THE WORST THING A PARASITE CAN DO IS TO KILL ITS HOST….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204262304577068390695355660.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

The Democrats are in a high stakes game.  Abandoning part of your base is always risky and it appear the Democrats are giving up being the party of the working man to being the party of the government supported man.   

     4. A third Party Candidate? 



Despite the Democrats salivating over the possibility of one of the Republican hopefuls running as a third party and syphoning votes away from the Republicans, the likelihood is almost nil that any would do it (funding and desire eliminates them).  So who should be wary of a third party candidate?



…SELF-FUNDING WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM FOR NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG. The multi-billionaire media mogul could easily follow the Perot model and launch a national campaign. This would hardly be a Republican nightmare, however, despite Bloomberg's occasional affiliation with the GOP. There are few Republicans who would rush to the side of a notorious gun-control advocate who has pursued government mandates on salt use in restaurants and restrictions on outdoor smoking. Bloomberg's most likely impact would be on northeastern states such as New York and Connecticut, two Democratic strongholds in which Republicans wouldn't contend otherwise. BLOOMBERG COULD ALSO DRAW VOTES AWAY FROM OBAMA IN RUST BELT STATES LIKE PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO, WHICH WOULD FATALLY WEAKEN OBAMA'S ALREADY SLIM CHANCES OF WINNING A SECOND TERM.

OF ALL THE INDEPENDENT BID POSSIBILITIES, BLOOMBERG'S IS THE MOST LIKELY — or at least the least unlikely. Bloomberg took aim at Obama’s lack of leadership in the super committee debacle last week, perhaps signaling some consideration of a run for the White House. He could build an organization nearly overnight with his own funding, and Bloomberg might gain traction among those on the center-left and traditional Democratic donors on Wall Street who have grown disenchanted with the class warfare adopted by the Democratic Party, perhaps especially after the incitement of the Occupy movement — which Bloomberg also recently and repeatedly criticized.

IF WE SEE A SIGNIFICANT INDEPENDENT RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE NEXT FALL, IT MAY WELL BE THE DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE THE MOST TO FEAR FROM IT.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/221866/democrats-should-fear-a-third-party-challenge-in-2012/2

     5. Loved by media, Barney Frank Helped Cause Financial Crisis

Establishment media are swooning over the unexpected departure of ultraliberal Barney Frank. BUT THIS "CHAMPION OF THE LITTLE GUY" ACTUALLY HELPED CAUSE THE MORTGAGE DISASTER, THEN KEPT THE SYSTEM BROKEN.

'Congress will now be a little dumber," was the kind of nonsense we heard from the mainstream liberal media after Frank, D-Mass., former chairman of the House Banking Committee, said no to running for re-election next year.

Formally reprimanded by a heavily Democratic House on a 408-to-18 vote in 1990 for ethics offenses regarding his financial relationship with a male prostitute, Frank has for decades been a fast-talking, acidic presence in House debates.

But HE WASN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT THE POLITICALLY CORRECT POISONING OF MORTGAGES WOULD LEAD TO A CALAMITY RIVALING THE GREAT DEPRESSION. "I, LIKE MANY OTHERS, DID NOT SEE THE CRISIS COMING," FRANK SAID MONDAY.

He sure didn't. BACK IN 2003, WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES DESCRIBED AS "THE MOST SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY OVERHAUL IN THE HOUSING FINANCE INDUSTRY since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago," including a new agency to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

FRANK SAID: "THE MORE PEOPLE EXAGGERATE THESE PROBLEMS, THE MORE PRESSURE THERE IS ON THESE COMPANIES, THE LESS WE WILL SEE IN TERMS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING." Fannie and Freddie, of course, are those corrupt public-private hybrid monstrosities that gave lots of mortgages to people with horrendous credit ratings.

After 1996's welfare reform, liberals like Frank found other ways to redistribute wealth. Yet even after the politicization of mortgages led to the financial crisis, last year's Dodd-Frank reform kept "too big to fail" and other defects in our federally mismanaged banking system

http://news.investors.com/Article/593006/201111281824/liberal-frank-leaves-legacy-of-financial-failure.htm

Barney Frank was bright, but not smart.  His protection of Fannie and Freddie have cause untold heartache for many Americans.  If your house in underwater, you can thank Barney.  But when he announced his retirement, the stock market did go up over 290 points. 

      6. The White House Warned Congress about Fannie Mae Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008, Alone

The White House attempts to set the record straight:

(I’m copying this post from the White House webpage in it’s entirety because I want people to read the whole thing).

FOR MANY YEARS THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION HAVE NOT ONLY WARNED OF THE SYSTEMIC CONSEQUENCES OF FINANCIAL TURMOIL AT A HOUSING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISE (GSE) BUT ALSO PUT FORWARD THOUGHTFUL PLANS TO REDUCE THE RISK THAT EITHER FANNIE MAE OR FREDDIE MAC WOULD ENCOUNTER SUCH DIFFICULTIES. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)…

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/

But remember Barney was telling us "the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."









     7.  TEA Party to be Audited after Complaining about Treatment

Two weeks after the Richmond Tea Party delivered an invoice to Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones for costs incurred for previous rallies, we received a letter from the City of Richmond formally stating that the city is auditing our Tea Party. Coincidence? This audit is an obvious attempt to intimidate and harass us for standing up against the unfair treatment and discrimination against our Tea Party.

First some back story: as reported on the front page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, THE RICHMOND TEA PARTY DELIVERED AN INVOICE FOR CHARGES INCURRED IN OUR PREVIOUS THREE TAX DAY RALLIES AT KANAWHA PLAZA because Mayor Jones chose to allow Occupy Richmond protesters to convene in the same park for two weeks.

The Mayor not only allowed the Occupiers to break the law, but he visited them in the city-owned park. “Jones said that as a ‘child of civil rights’ and protests, he had allowed the group to remain in the park but understands his mayoral responsibility to uphold laws of the city,” reported the Richmond Times Dispatch.

APPARENTLY HIS MAYORAL DUTIES INCLUDED PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR A GROUP HE SYMPATHIZES WITH IDEOLOGICALLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TAXPAYERS.

The blog Virginia Right reported that the city provided services such as portable toilets, trash pickup, etc. The incomplete invoices obtained from the city totaled $7,000. This was only a portion of the actual costs to taxpayers because the costs of police, helicopter and incarcerations were not included. ALSO NOT ACCOUNTED FOR WAS THE 24-HOUR POLICE PROTECTION OF THE MAYOR’S HOME AFTER THE OCCUPIERS MOVED THEIR CAMP NEXT DOOR TO THE MAYOR’S HOUSE. The Richmond Tea Party, conversely, paid for all services for our rallies, including the police, portable toilets, park fees and permits, amounting to approximately $8,500….

http://biggovernment.com/cowens/2011/11/28/richmond-city-audits-local-tea-party-after-standoff-with-mayor/

Coincidence?  Probably not. 

     8. Hypocrisy and Hollywood

Some of the most outspoken critics of the "income disparity" that exists within the free-market capitalist system can be found in Hollywood, where you'll also happen to find some of the most prosperous beneficiaries of the very system they criticize. What Hollywood so conveniently ignores is the mammoth "income disparity" and gluttonous (by their own standards for others) behavior within its own industry.

THE ORIGIN OF THE WORDS "HYPOCRISY" AND "HYPOCRITE" COMES FROM THE GREEK WORDS HYPOKRISIS, WHICH IN PART MEANS "PLAY-ACTING," AND HYPOKRITES, WHICH IN PART MEANS "PLAY-ACTOR." It's ironic that hypokrites engaged in the art of hypokrisis have no problem amassing enormous piles of wealth while at the same time hypocritically denouncing the capitalist system that enabled them to create that wealth in the first place. Evidently, it's greedy to be wealthy only if you earn your millions while on the outside of their tiny elitist circle of privilege….

…PERHAPS IT'S TIME HOLLYWOOD QUITS THE ACT AND STARTS LIVING BY THE FAR-LEFT SOCIALIST IDEAS IT EMBRACES AND HAS BEEN PREACHING FOR SO LONG. Here are a few ideas that, if implemented, can help save the denizens of Hollywood from the stigma of being hypocrites as defined today.

First: many of the high rollers in Hollywood claim that it's not "fair" that a CEO makes upwards of 700 times the amount of the average worker within a corporation. But a lead actor or actress can make well in excess of $100K a day during a movie shoot, while someone like the prop guy most likely makes little more than $100 a day. IF HOLLYWOOD ELITES TRULY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH "INCOME DISPARITY," THEY SHOULD LEAD BY EXAMPLE -- I.E., STOP "TAKING" SO MUCH INCOME FOR THEMSELVES AND START SPREADING THAT WEALTH EQUALLY AMONGST ALL OF THOSE "EXPLOITED" WORKERS INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THESE MOVIES. Since they condemn what others outside their industry do with their earnings, I think it's fair to ask: do they really need to have multiple mansions, dozens of cars, and monthly $150K parties? There's no need to wait for government to force these changes upon them. They are free to start their ascent from the depths of hypocrisy at this very minute….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/hollywood_hypocrisy_in_the_hypokrisis_industry.html#ixzz1f5mPRT9R

These are the folks who are part of the 1% but have no qualms about visiting OWS protests and get feted for it.  They are getting paid so much more than the teachers or police or even factory workers get, when what they do is make believe. 





     9. Kagan should recuse herself

…As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and three of his Senate Republican colleagues wrote in a Nov. 18 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, a justice should withdraw from any case in which he or she "HAS SERVED IN GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYMENT AND IN SUCH CAPACITY PARTICIPATED AS COUNSEL, ADVISER OR MATERIAL WITNESS CONCERNING THE PROCEEDING OR EXPRESSED AN OPINION CONCERNING THE MERITS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE OR CONTROVERSY." The law further stipulates that recusal is appropriate whenever a justice's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

As McConnell and his three colleagues - Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Lee of Utah - point out to Holder, RECENTLY RELEASED EMAILS SUGGEST THAT JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN'S INVOLVEMENT AS U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION "MAY SATISFY BOTH REQUIREMENTS FOR RECUSAL." Frankly, we think the GOP senators are understating what those emails reveal about Kagan's efforts in the campaign for Obamacare, even though she claimed before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing that her role as not "substantial."

For example, in January 2010, two months before Kagan became aware of her possible nomination to the Supreme Court by President Obama, HOLDER'S UNDERLINGS BEGAN PREPARING THEIR DEFENSES OF OBAMACARE. KAGAN WAS "HEAVILY INVOLVED" IN THAT PLANNING, ACCORDING TO AN EMAIL FROM NEIL KATYAL, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL. In another email, Katyal explained that he had spoken with Kagan earlier in the day about a Justice Department working group on Obamacare defense preparations and said "ELENA WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE OSG [OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL] TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS SET OF ISSUES." KAGAN WOULD BE BROUGHT INTO THE WORKING GROUP'S DELIBERATIONS "AS NEEDED." Since the key issue facing the working group was preparing legal defenses that would be presented by the solicitor general, it is inconceivable to think that official would be excluded from such deliberations….

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/11/kagan-should-recuse-herself-obamacare-deliberations/1955541#ixzz1f6ZOx5LJ

Kagan needs to stand up and be recused. 

Why in the world?

Must Gay People vote a certain way?

A side issue that is going on is whether or not Elana Kagan is gay. The funny part here is it is a concern of both the extreme right and the extreme left.

On the extreme right, the concern is that a person shouldn't be gay in this position because it might influence their decisions on gay rights issues. On the extreme left the concern is related to the extreme right's position in that they feel if a person is gay, there is a certain way they are supposed to vote.

Hopefully, a judge would not allow their personal circumstances guide their vote. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that this belief will be acceptable to either side of the aisle and there also appears to be a belief or a fear that there is only one side to the issue if you are a member of a certain group.

EJ Dionne screws it up again

EJ Dionne just wrote a column titled "Democrats' Diverse Coalition." In it he says:

"Republicans will, indeed, end the year a more philosophically coherent right-wing party. But the Democrats will, if anything, become more ideologically diverse."

What absolute nonsense! He sees the Democrats running in more conservative areas as proof that the Democrats are diverse. He cites the race of U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (a moderate democrat) against Arlan Spector (a Republican turned Democrat) as proof of how Democrats have a big tent while the loss of while relatively conservative incumbents such as the defeated Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah indicates to Dionne that the Republicans are less tolerant. I guess he missed the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas who recently said: "Just like the far right, I think the far left also believes that you've got to be with them 100 percent of the time or you don't meet the test,"

Finally Dionne should read the Huffington Post sometime and see how many in his "diverse coalition" are calling for voting out the DINOs. In fact, there are many Democrats who aren't left wing enought who aren't safe this year from their own voters while those who are left wing enough aren't safe from independent voters.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/17/democrats_diverse_coalition.html

Kerry-Lieberman -- The wrong problem, the wrong solution and the wrong time

" Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., have managed to write a cap-and-trade energy bill that should be greeted with guffaws from both believers and skeptics of man-made global warming. At a cost of billions of dollars and millions of jobs across America, the proposal would produce virtually no reduction in global temperatures even after being in force for decades. Using the MAGICC/SCENGEN climate model originally developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and assuming no other nation adopts the same measure, climate researcher Paul Knappenberger found that Kerry-Lieberman would reduce the average global temperature 0.077 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, compared with what it would be if the bill were not adopted "

That's right folks. If the IPCC models say we will increase 2 degrees C by 2050, this will reduce that number to 1.923 degrees instead. Now that may be a liberal's idea of progress, but it isn't mine.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Kerry-Lieberman-is-a-bad-joke-93798049.html#ixzz0oBiOxh1Q

And this. G20: Climate Change No Longer A Priority

Thursday, 13 May 2010 14:49 The Canadian Press Canada brushed aside a direct public demand Wednesday by the visiting United Nations chief and reiterated that it will not make climate change a priority agenda item when it hosts the G20 summit next month.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper stuck to his G20 plan to keep the summit's focus squarely on the global economic recovery after he met UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his Parliament Hill office.

At least they are getting the message in Canada.

AZ Governor, Palin Criticize AG Eric Holder For Not Reading Law.

Below you will find a link to a video showing this. When I saw it I was struck by the realization we keep seeing people on the left passing laws and criticizing other's laws without reading them.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/16/az_governor_palin_criticize_ag_eric_holder_for_not_reading_law.html

To me this indicates that these people are ideologues first, and thinking humans beings only as an after thought. Is it too much to ask people to get the facts straight before they comment on them?

More Bad News for the Democrats

"Young voters capture this Obama-base problem. Obama won a larger share of younger voters than any president since at least the Second World War.

History, however, appears unlikely to repeat itself. About half of voters under age 30 are enthusiastic about voting this year, according to Gallup, compared to about two-thirds of seniors.

Young Republicans are also more likely to vote in 2010 than young Democrats, 41 to 35 percent respectively, according to a Harvard poll earlier this year. The same is true for young adults who disapprove of the president, compared to those who approve."

While a lot of liberals pooh pooh the TEA Party, we do know it is filled with people who are enthusiastic about voting this year. And I know I've seen numbers of young people there as well somewhat supporting the above information.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/17/reality_check_obamas_base_likely_to_disappoint_dems_105610.html