Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Pentagon Layoff Notifications to Be Delayed Until After Election

So the People that might get laid off won't get layoff notes until after the election??????   Sound stupid fishy to me???

The Labor Department, warning defense contractors against announcing impending layoffs as required by law, is elevating election-year politics above sound policy, according to a former top DOL official.

Paul Conway, who served as chief of staff to Labor Secretary Elaine Chow under President George W. Bush, told me that DOL’s guidance, which warns that announcements of impending layoffs as a result of Defense sequestration cuts would be “inappropriate,” “comes across as very crass.”
Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, employers are required to notify workers at least 60 days in advance of potential layoffs that they expect will hit at least 500 employees. Defense sequestration cuts are expected to lead to large layoffs for Pentagon contractors. Under current law, sequestration will take effect on January 2, meaning contractors that expect large layoffs must notify their employees by November 3 – three days before the election.
DOL said on Monday that it would be “inappropriate” for those notices to go out in November, since some in Congress are working to avert those sequestration cuts. But regardless of congressional action, current law stipulates that the cuts will, in fact, take place, and employers are required to operate under that assumption.
Conway believes DOL is trying to avoid talking about impending layoffs in the height of campaign season. “Very clearly, from our perspective,” Conway told me, “they don’t want to further a bad news story less than 100 days from an election.”
An online DOL “fact sheet” says the Department does not have enforcement authority under the WARN Act and therefore “cannot provide specific advice or guidance with respect to individual situations.” But that appears to be exactly what it has done. Indeed, Conway said he could think of “no other time that it’s been done” – certainly not when he worked at the Department.
Of course, DOL can’t instruct companies to violate the law – hence the use of the term “inappropriate,” as opposed to a one with more legal punch. But Monday’s guidance appears to be an attempt to use “the weight of the cabinet officer [Labor Secretary Hilda Solis] and the weight of the department” to pressure companies to hold off on layoff announcements, Conway said.
A handful of lawmakers on Tuesday echoed that sentiment. DOL’s guidance “lays bare the obvious political aim of today’s announcement – avoiding mass layoff notices just days before the November 6th election,” said Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) in a joint statement.
Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) accused the administration of “trying to intimidate industries to not issue pink slips until after the election.”


Ugly Americans: To Justify Appalling Behavior, Media Distorts Romney's Overseas Press Availability

Reporters are asking him questions about the "Gaffs"  What a bunch of Liberal Idiots!


Question: Which is worse? Screaming shrill, partisan questions in a sacred place or being told to kiss an ass for doing so?

Less than a hundred yards from Poland's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and in obvious coordination with one another, the media conspired to fabricate a gaffe to feed their insatiable anti-Romney narrative about his overseas trip.
What we're seeing now is that in order to justify their screaming of shrill, partisan questions within throwing distance of a sacred place (talk about epitomizing the Ugly American stereotype), the media is now lying through an act omission by fabricating the idea that this was all Romney's fault because he refused to make himself available to the media.
Over at Politico, Jonathan Martin repeats the media talking points we're now reading and seeing everywhere:
Romney has not held a media availability for his traveling press corps since taking three questions outside 10 Downing Street in London last Thursday.
The trick the corrupt media is playing here is in what they don't tell you, which is that Romney has probably answered over a HUNDRED questions during his overseas trip.
Yes, that's right, Romney sat down with Greta, Brian Williams, Piers Morgan and Wolf Blitzer at different times DURING this trip and answered every question thrown at him.
So the media's nonsense narrative to justify their appalling behavior is a bald-faced lie.
I repeat the question: which is worse? Screaming like Ugly Americans in a sacred place or being told to kiss an ass for doing so?

Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped

The Supreme Court's decision last month to uphold the Obamacare mandate tax did not vindicate the propriety or efficacy of the law itself, a point Chief Justice Roberts explicitly stated in his ruling. "It is not [The Court's] job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” he wrote. As we learn more about Obamacare's practical consequences, the urgent need for repeal becomes increasingly apparent. Consider the following news items from the past week alone:

(1) "Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen with Health Law":

The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000. Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.
“We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.” Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care. “It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”

The article goes on to mention the draining pool of doctors who are accepting new Medicaid patients, which will throw up another obstacle to care for indigent Americans -- especially after the entitlement program undergoes a massive, Obamacare-mandated expansion. As opponents of the law repeatedly warned, access to health coverage does not equal access to health care. In Canada and other countries with socialized medicine, everyone is "covered," but doctors are scarce, innovation is curtailed and treatment is limited. This can lead to long waiting periods, government rationing, perverse doctor lotteries and denied care. Furthermore, Democrats chose to exclude meaningful tort reform from their 2,700 page bill, further hanging physicians out to dry. This is why older doctors are quickly shuffling towards retirement, and many promising young students eschew medical school in favor of other careers. Obamacare takes our demographic struggles on this front and makes them even more acute, much sooner.

(2) "One in 10 Employers Plans to Drop Health Benefits, Study Finds:"

About one in 10 employers plans to end workers' health insurance as the new healthcare law takes effect, according to a new study. The finding could bolster opponents of the law, who argue that its changes to the healthcare system will force workers out of insurance plans they like. Supporters of the law say most people will keep their current coverage. Surveying 560 U.S. companies, consulting firm Deloitte found that 9 percent of employers are planning to drop employee health benefits within three years. Eighty-one percent said they would continue covering employees, and 10 percent said they were not sure.

Is your employer among the 19 percent that are either planning to drop coverage, or are still considering it? Let's also recall the president's verbatim promise during the healthcare debate: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

(3) "CBO - Obamacare to Cost $1.93 Trillion, Leave 30 Million Uninsured:"

The latest CBO scoring of Obamacare, in the wake of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the overhaul's individual mandate as an allowable (although seemingly unprecedented) tax on inactivity, shows that President Obama's centerpiece legislation would cost about $2 trillion over its real first decade (2014 through 2023). The CBO also says that — despite its colossal cost and its unprecedented expansion of power and control over Americans' lives — Obamacare would, as of a decade from now, leave 30 million people uninsured. At the time of Obamacare's passage, Democrats touted the fact that the CBO had then said that the gross cost of Obamacare's insurance coverage provisions would be "only" $938 billion.
Moreover, the CBO and/or the Medicare chief actuary have previously said that Obamacare would raise health insurance premiums, would raise overall U.S. health costs, would raise taxes on Americans and on American businesses, and would siphon something approaching $1 trillion (from 2014 through 2023) out of Medicare. In the process (according to the Medicare chief actuary), Obamacare would reduce reimbursement rates for Medicare providers to the point where they'd be lower even than the notoriously low reimbursement rates paid to Medicaid providers — therefore jeopardizing seniors' access to care. Oh, and Obamacare would also establish the unelected and largely unaccountable 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to institute further Medicare cuts.

(4) "Surprise: Obamacare Medical Device Tax Killing Jobs in the Industry:"

“None of this was allocated three years ago when we created a strategic plan to become profitable,” CEO Mike Minogue told the House Committee on Small Business last week. Minogue testified the amount Abiomed will pay for the excise tax is the equivalent of 15 percent of the company’s research and development budget, 10 percent of its employee head count, or almost double what it spends on health care for hundreds of employees.This tax will affect jobs. It will mix health care reform with tax policy and it will be extra detrimental to companies that are not yet profitable and need every dollar to survive,” he said. Minogue also cited logistical concerns. The exact regulation, still not finalized, goes into effect Jan. 1 2013, and Abiomed’s books have to be closed and audited by March. According to the medical-device industry’s national association, the field employs more than 400,000 Americans, and 70 percent of medical device companies are small businesses.

This is merely one small component of a larger picture, which led the CBO to conclude that Obamacare will cost the US economy 800,000 jobs. The latest NYT/CBS poll shows public approval of Obamacare underwater by a 36/50 margin. Rasmussen's new numbers reflect an enduring majority in favor of legislative repeal. The vast majority of national Democrats continue to support the even-less-popular Obamacare mandate tax, in lockstep with the president. The only way to rid the country of this costly governmental intrusion and its related repercussions is to defeat those who back the law and replace them with public servants who do not.


General Motors still owes and has Issues!

This wasn’t supposed to happen until Nov. 7: It’s like the last act of Titus Andronicus over at GM corporate headquarters.
Two weeks ago, Opel chief Karl-Friedrich Stracke presented numbers to Dan Akerson. Akerson fires him. Opel gets two interim chiefs in a week. Last Thursday, Opel’s new design chief Dave Lyon doesn’t even start his job. Today, media in the U.S. and Germany report that Lyon had been escorted from the building and to a waiting car by GM’s head of personnel. A day later, global marketing chief Joel Ewanick suddenly leaves. Instead of wishing him all the best for his future endeavors, GM spokesman Greg Martin puts a knife in Ewanick’s back: “He failed to meet the expectations the company has of an employee.”
I’m having trouble understanding all this. I’ve been told that after its Rattnerized bailout GM is “back,” a dramatic ”success story.” The president himself has boasted “General Motors is back on top.” Yet now a few weeks later Bloomberg says the company is in a “slump”–it’s right there, in the headline: “slump.” How can the bailed out, comebacked, turned around success story GM be in a slump when the U.S. auto market as a whole is growing rapidly? It’s almost as if an easily spun media wildly underestimated the problems at GM (and the inadequacy of the administration’s fixes) in a way that helped President Obama’s favored narrative (and pleased a major advertiser at the same time!) …
P.S.: Why is all this executive turmoil happening now? It’s very hard for an outsider to know exactly what is going on, but there are three theories. 1) GM CEO Akerson is panicking (Truth About Cars’ theory); 2) Akerson is kind of incompetent and hires people he then chases away or has to fire; 3) … I’m thinking of a third. … What’s the third? I know there’s a third. …
P.P.S.: I’d forgotten that in April, 2010 President Obama told the nation (in his weekly radio address)
“It won’t be too long before the stock the Treasury is holding in GM could be sold ….”
Two years later, the Treasury still owns more than 26% of GM. The stock price of the dramatic administration success story is too low to sell without taking gigantic, embarrassing losses. …

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/30/mayhem-at-gm/#ixzz22FbFtNe5

Obama Makes Good on Promise to Bankrupt the Coal Industry

In January 2008, when Barack Obama was trying to put some distance between himself and other Democrats seeking the party's nomination, he touted his green policies. In particular, he talked about his intentions to put regulations in place that would shut down coal plants around the country.

Speaking in San Francisco, candidate Obama said: "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them."
Enter 2012, and a record number of coal-fired generators are set to be shut down. As the Daily Caller reported, because of the "stiff federal environmental regulations" the Obama administration has put in place, 175 generators are scheduled to be phased out. That represents "8.5 percent of the total coal-fired capacity in the United States."
Of these 175 generators, 57 are scheduled to be taken offline in 2012.
In other words, the "cost of compliance" with Obama-era regulations is simply too high, thus coal-fired plant owners find themselves right where Obama said they would were he elected. Now they can either shut the generators down or keep them online and inch ever closer to bankruptcy.
How's that for "hope and change"?


Obama Admin Sides With Palestinians, Hits Romney

This whole Romney trip had Obama Squirming the way it looked! He Leaked a deal with Isreal while Romney was there. The Liberal media was trying to find anything on Romney To report on. I think they all suck as Liberals because they are obvious  on not reporting on the current issues at home! Brian Williams always stated Romney with trouble and the campaign trail in the same lines!
  Any so called Gafs have no bering on this Countrys issues. So all the MSM can take these stories and shove them way up (somewhere........civility)

The Obama administration, trying to dig itself out of a hole with American Jews, just inadvertently dug itself in even deeper. Today, Mitt Romney spoke in Jerusalem, where he attributed Palestinian economic stagnation to cultural issues:

Culture makes all the difference. And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things. As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality.

In point of fact, as of 2009, Israel had a per capita GDP of just under $30,000, while the Palestinians were below $3,000.

But that wasn’t the bone the Obama administration had to pick with Romney. Instead, the Obama administration said that Romney’s comments wouldn’t allow America to be “seen as an honest broker … Romney fell off the tightrope pretty dramatically.” Those were the words of Colin Kahl, an Obama campaign foreign policy advisor direct from the Pentagon – the same Pentagon that has routinely leaked Israeli national security information that would allow the Jewish State to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The Israeli-Palestinian issue, said Kahl, was “extraordinarily complicated and delicate issues and is not something you can just wing it on and expect not to make some mistakes, and Governor Romney made a big one.”

There is only one problem with this, of course: America is not supposed to be an honest broker between Israel, an American ally, and the Palestinians, a terrorist-supporting population led by Hamas and the deeply corrupt Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian culture does prevent economic growth – teaching hatred for Israelis and the west, and preventing education of women will do that.

The Obama administration may be trying to score political points at Mitt Romney’s expense, but all they’ve succeeded in doing is underscoring their own tepid support for the State of Israel.

That doesn’t stop the New York Times from labeling Romney’s statements a gaffe, and stating that this was “the second time that Mr. Romney has unwittingly offended a group of people in a part of the world he was visiting.” But Romney was right – culture matters. And the Obama administration and New York Times are going to have a rough go of convincing American Jews that they should vote for Obama when he wants to pretend that culture isn’t a significant differentiator between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.


NPR's Cokie Roberts: Romney Poland Trip Racially Motivated

Here is that Racist Garbage Again!!!Liberal Media SUCKS!

What's important about the NPR excerpt below, which broadcast this morning, is that this is everything NPR's Cokie Roberts has to say about Romney's motives for going to Poland. This is the entirety of it. You can listen for yourself here, but when Roberts was asked why Poland, the sole motive Roberts came up with is a racial one.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you your tax dollars at work:
LINDA WERTHEIMER, HOST: So today is Poland. Why is he stopping in Poland. What does he hope to accomplish with that?
Cokie Roberts: Well, I think part of it was a desire to portray President Obama as something of a wimp, and say he's abandoned Eastern Europe. But look, you remember well the Reagan Democrats. Those ethnic white voters who had been Democrats for many years; turned out for Ronald Reagan, and have been fairly predictable Republicans since then. Now it's a smaller percentage of the population -- of the voting population -- than it used to be, but white voters are still much more Republican than any other group in the electorate. They went for McCain in 2008 by 55%. And I think that getting those ethnic voters excited is really what Romney has in mind here. It's more for the folks at home -- the descendents of the people that he will be speaking to -- in Poland.
As you can see, according to Roberts, Romney didn't go to Poland to gain some foreign policy experience or to prepare himself to be president or to help differentiate between his values and those of our current president. No, it was all some dark, divisive, cynical, racial plan to suck up to us rural white bitter-clingers.
Yep, Romney went to Poland to blow a big racial dog-whistle.
This is pure McCarthyism on Roberts's part. Nothing more, nothing less.
When you use the word McCarthyism as a pejorative, as leftists like Roberts love to do, it means ascribing the very worst motives to someone without a shred of evidence. The idea is disqualify, delegitimize, toxify, and attempt to silence this person by hurling a vicious accusation even though you have absolutely no proof to back it up.
As we've seen for the last four years, when it comes to protecting Barack Obama, this is all the media does. No matter what it is, if it might in any way hurt Obama, the left-wing media screams racist. For example, today we have the presumptive GOP nominee wrapping up a successful international trip that's ended with a lot of positive media coverage, but…
…that might hurt Obama. So…
During the 2008 election, this was the left's playbook, and now we're starting to see this desperate McCarthyism return. Last week, it was the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. Now it's Cokie Roberts.
Roberts has always been very good at spouting the most outlandish stuff and doing so while sounding perfectly reasonable and matter-of-fact. But don’t listen to her tone; read the words. It's pure McCarthyism -- a deliberate attempt to throw a racial cloud over Romney and his campaign without a shred of evidence.
But the only one truly blowing a racial dog-whistle here is Roberts -- and she's doing so while disguised as an objective journalist and with our tax dollars.

Krauthammer Demands Correction and Apology from White House After Churchill Bust Bust Busted

So the WhiteHouse  Lied?

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer has written an extraordinary column in the Washington Post asking for an apology and correction from President Barack Obama's communications director in the White House, Dan Pfeiffer, after Pfeiffer's "bust" of Krauthammer's reference to a bust of Winston Churchill was itself "busted" by bloggers and journalists who documented that the bust had, in fact, been returned by President Obama to the British Embassy and not moved to another room, as claimed by spokesman Jay Carney last week.

The story of the bust dates to the early days of Obama's presidency in 2009, when he returned a Churchill bust to the British Embassy that had been loaned to the Bush administration and which sat in the Oval Office. The British Embassy offered to renew the loan, but Obama refused--leading to speculation as to what the cause of his apparent animus towards Britain might be. Some speculated that it might be resentment about the "fact" that his grandfather had been tortured by the British in Kenya--one of many colorful details about Obama's biography that turned out not to be true. The reality was more mundane: Obama sought to downplay any notion of a "special relationship" with Britain--especially one connected to the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
Three-and-a-half years later, Krauthammer referred to the bust incident in a column about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's trip abroad, and the White House suddenly unleashed a furious response, calling the Churchill bust story "100% false," and including a photograph of Obama supposedly showing off the bust to British Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010. But Pfeiffer's version of events--and Carney's--did not match the facts as they became known in 2009, and journalists and bloggers went digging for the truth.
Breitbart News' John Sexton unearthed a photograph of the returned bust in the British Embassy in 2009. ABC News' Jake Tapper confirmed that there are in fact two Churchill busts: one permanently in the White House as a gift, the other temporarily in the White House as a loan--which was indeed returned to the British Embassy in 2009. Pfeiffer then added an update to his statement on the White House blog, in which he acknowledged that one bust had been returned: it "was removed by the curator’s office, as is common practice at the end of every presidency," he claimed. And yet the fact remained, as Krauthammer points out in his response to Pfeiffer, that the British Embassy had offered to extend the loan, and Obama had refused.
Krauthammer's conclusion is devastating:
In my view, this whole affair was completely unnecessary. Pfeiffer devoted an entire post (with accompanying photography) on the White House Blog to a single sentence in a larger argument about foreign policy, and blew it up into an indignant defense of truth itself and a handy club with which to discredit the credibility of a persistent critic of his boss. (After all, why now? Why this column? Since the return of the Oval Office Churchill in 2009, that fact had been asserted in at least half a dozen major news outlets, including Newsweek, CBS News, ABC News, the Telegraph and The Washington Post.)
So I suggest Mr. Pfeiffer bring this to a short, painless and honorable conclusion: a simple admission that he got it wrong and that my assertion was correct. An apology would be nice, but given this White House’s arm’s-length relationship with truth--and given Ryan Zimmerman’s hot hitting--I reckon the Nationals will win the World Series before I receive Pfeiffer’s mea culpa.
A response worthy of a nod from Retracto, the Correction Alpaca. Well played, Mr. Krauthammer.


Federal Court: Obama Appointees Interfered With Prosecution in New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case

A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled last week that a number of President Obama’s political appointees within the U.S. Department of Justice did in fact interfere with the prosecution of two New Black Panther party members who were videotaped holding a night stick and intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia voting station back in 2008.
Thus far, both Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department have denied the involvement of political leadership in the case, something that is now being called into question.
The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch previously sued the DOJ in federal court regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pertaining to information surrounding the New Black Panthers case. As a result of the lawsuit, the group was able to obtain a number of withheld documents and are now suing the DOJ for attorney’s fees, the Washington Examiner reports. More importantly, as a result of their motion, a federal judge ruled against the DOJ.
The Washington Examiner has more:
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
“The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.”

“In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.”
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”
Following a brief investigation into the 2008 New Black Panthers Case, the Department of Justice filed charges. However, the Panthers didn’t respond and a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the defendants.
Enter Obama.
Shortly after he became president, the DOJ quickly backpedaled and the charges against three of the New Black Panther party members were dropped and a fourth was let off with a restraining order.
Watch the video of the New Black Panther party members holding a billy club and intimidating voters outside Philadelphia polling station here:

Townhall’s Katie Pavlich also provides video of DOJ whistleblower Christian Adams on Fox News, who resigned over the case:


‘Let’s Go To Work’: Did Elizabeth Warren Call for America to Go Communist?

This Woman has a Foul odor comming out of Her mouth when she opens it!

Massachusetts Senate candidate and sometime Native American Elizabeth Warren has released a new campaign ad today, apparently pivoting away from her maligned race background to a more bread-and-butter message. Specifically, in the ad, Warren for more investments in infrastructure like roads and bridges. Which, as we all know, are the things that build businesses.

But so what? Surely the woman who foreshadowed President Obama’s infamous “You didn’t build that” remark calling for more spending on infrastructure is no more news than Barney Frank calling for gay marriage. True enough, but what sets this Warren ad apart from her typical line is her unfavorable comparison of the United States‘ infrastructure spending to China’s infrastructure spending.
“Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future. China invests 9 percent of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We’re at just 2.4 percent,” Warren says in the ad. “We can do better.”
Needless to say, unsympathetic media sources have already leapt on the comment, treating it as de facto evidence that Warren is sympathetic to communism. Given her close ideological ties to Occupy Wall Street’s message, this is not that much of a stretch. However, Warren apparently doesn’t see herself this way. A National Journal story quotes her as follows:
“Every now and again, I meet with someone who’s been very successful on Wall Street, who says, ‘I want to support your campaign because I believe you will save capitalism. I believe in capitalism, and I understand there have to be rules. And they have to be consistently enforced.’ That’s what I think is at stake in this election.”
That’s a hefty assignment, the salvation of capitalism, but Democratic strategists, while cringing at the grandiosity of the statement, say she articulates her vision for the assignment as well as any candidate.
So Warren wants to “save capitalism.” A noble goal, to be sure, but skeptics may be inclined to wonder if her tactics might be a bit mistaken. However, perhaps more importantly, one has to wonder how this will play with her supporters. After all, one of the key arguments by the Democratic party is that the Republicans currently represent a move back to the “failed” policies of George W. Bush. Now, how did Bush justify those “failed policies?”

Abandoning free market principles in order to save the free market system, right. What was that about saving capitalism again?


Sunday, July 29, 2012

Nanny State? NYC Hospitals To Lock Up Baby Formula To Encourage Breast-Feeding

I wasn't going to link this but this stuff Just makes me more angry! This Idiot Mayor now is trying to tell  Mothers what to feed their newborn??? What if a mother cannot breast feed? What if the mother don't want to? He is trying to control what you drink and now this?? If I was New Yorkers I would be telling this guy to kiss something or show him the Road!



Gibbs: 'Prep School Bully' Romney 'Selectively Edited' Obama's Words

He is a flat out Liar!  If you watched Obama in his own words, his video was played in their entire run!  The ads are their as is. NBC Is the WhiteHouse editing news media that cuts and distorts words out of context....Its been Proven!!


I don't have a negative view of Romney...I have a negative view of Obama every time He Opens his mouth and especially his speeches at schools! Then his ads against Bane don't work for me!


Pelosi: Republican Jews 'Being Exploited' on Israel

She is such an Idiot! Obama made a trip before he was elected, and thats OK and now Romney does it and its a phot op???  What a Bunch of Liberal Idiots. Cant handle it when they are not in control!

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), perturbed by the fact that more and more American Jews are turning away from her anti-Israel president, has been relegated to slandering American Jews who don’t toe the Democratic Party line. Pelosi said in an interview yesterday, “I think [Obama] will win [the Jewish vote]. I think that he will, because the fact is when the facts get out. You know, as many of the Republicans are using Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth.” In other words, Republicans don’t give a damn about Israel – they only want to leverage Jews into supporting giveaways to fat cats.

But Pelosi didn’t stop there. Jews who vote Republican, she said, were morons – “they’re being exploited,” she said. Then, recognizing that she’d stepped onto shaky ground, she added, “And they’re smart people. They follow these issues. But they have to know the facts.”

What were the facts, according to Pelosi? “President Obama has been the strongest person in terms of sanctions on Iran, which is important to Israel. He’s been the strongest person on whether it’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, any of these weapons systems and initiatives that relate to Israel. He has been there over and over again.”

These are outright falsehoods. Obama has never visited Israel as president. As far as Obama’s support for stronger sanctions, he has been utterly unwilling to do anything without the backing of the United Nations, which has staunchly opposed stronger sanctions against Iran. His administration has repeatedly leaked vital national security information, undercutting Israel’s ability to strike at Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Obama’s State Department has banned Israel from a counterterrorism conference. His entire administration refuses to label Israel’s capital Jerusalem. The list goes on and on. The evidence shows that Obama is the least pro-Israel president in the history of the State of Israel.

Republican Jews are not fools. They are, by and large, the most observant Jews; they’re the ones who actually care most about the State of Israel and basic Jewish principles (none of which include abortion or same-sex marriage, which Jewish law forbids). Pelosi’s attempt to tell Jews that they simply don’t understand either Obama or their own Jewish identity is deeply insulting. Perhaps she should stick to telling Catholics that she knows more about birth than the Pope.


Government Motors Still Owes Taxpayers $42 Billion

And to think this Douchbag is bragging about the Bailout. Also what about the shareholders that lost their ass, What about all the Dealers they shut down and jobs lost? You don't hear about that!

President Obama and his supporters have been more than happy to tout his bailout of the auto industry, but General Motors still owes taxpayers $42 billion according to an Inspector General's report and the company's stock has hit an all time low.
GM owes $27 billion on the nearly $50 billion it received from the auto bailout and Ally Bank, the company’s lending arm, owes $14.7 billion of the $17.2 billion taxpayer-funded bailout it received.

GM’s stock has plummeted in recent months after stagnant development in overseas markets. It hit a new low on Wednesday, falling to $18.80, a 52 percent drop from its January 2011 high of $38.90.

The rapid decline of the stock price has kept taxpayers on the hook for billions in unpaid bailout dollars. The stock would need to make a quick—and meteoric—turnaround for taxpayers to break even.

“In order to recoup its total investment in GM, Treasury will need to recover an additional $27 billion in proceeds. This translates to an average of $53.98 per share on its remaining common shares in New GM,” the IG report concluded.
The electric Chevy Volt, a GM vehicle touted by President Obama and environmentalists (the same environmentalists waging a war on coal) is also failing miserably.
Chevy sold 7,671 Volts last year. Nissan’s all-electric Leaf didn’t do much better with 9,674 sales — less than half what Nissan had expected. Car makers often give up on conventional vehicles that post such poor numbers.

Keep working taxpayers! The government is depending on you.



Excellent Viewer Comments On Link!

Facing declining demand for electricity and stiff federal environmental regulations, coal plant operators are planning to retire 175 coal-fired generators, or 8.5 percent of the total coal-fired capacity in the United States, according to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
A record-high 57 generators will shut down in 2012, representing 9 gigawatts of electrical capacity, according to EIA. In 2015, nearly 10 gigawatts of capacity from 61 coal-fired generators will be retired.
While many of those coal plants are old and relatively inefficient, the scope of this new planned shutdown is unprecedented.
“The coal-fired capacity expected to be retired over the next five years is more than four times greater than retirements performed during the preceding five-year period,” EIA noted in the analysis.
The generators that will be retired between 2012 and 2016 are “approximately 12% more efficient than the group of units, on average, that retired during 2009-2011,” according to the EIA.
The low price of natural gas resulting from the shale boom has led to reduced coal consumption and made the shutdowns necessary, experts say.
But federal and state regulations have also damaged the industry and contributed to plant closures.
The cost of compliance with anticipated and existing Federal environmental regulations such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) is a factor,” the EIA noted. “Particularly in the case of older, smaller units that are not used heavily, owners may conclude it is more cost efficient to retire plants rather than make additional investments.”
Most of the coal-fired generator retirements will occur in the Mid-Atlantic, Ohio River Valley and the Southeast.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/28/record-number-of-coal-fired-generators-to-be-shut-down-in-2012/#ixzz223hSNtOv

Some More Links of Interest!

It Worked: US GDP Drops to 1.5 Percent Growth in Second Quarter of 2012 (So they Think)


White House on Dismal GDP Growth: At Least It's Still Growing

Gov. Fallin: Obama Economics Will Cost Jobs, Revenue
Gov. Fallin: Obama Economics Will Cost Jobs, Revenue

Contraceptive Mandate Suffers Court Blow as Catholic Business Wins Crucial Court Case (I love it)
 Contraceptive Mandate Suffers Court Blow as Catholic Business Wins Crucial Court Case

Video: The Gold Standard in 'You Didn't Build That' Ads (good "in his own words ads!)


'USA! USA!' Congressman's Anti-Big Government Rant Gets Standing Ovation On House Floor

ABC News Chief: Our Colorado Coverage Was Great

Saturday, July 28, 2012

And-you-thought-the-housing-crisis was Over!

Wow Sounds like the Community Reinvestment Act ( a totally Liberal Failed Program)

Do you remember that thing about how the banks wouldn't lend to blacks and Hispanics because they were racists? And do you remember how they passed the Community Reinvestment Act so that banks were forced to reduce down payments practically to zero and lend to a lot of people they knew were bad credit risks? And do you remember how Wall Street bundled all these risky subprime mortgages and sold them to investors around the world so that when it became clear that those people weren't going to be able to pay their mortgages banks everywhere were left holding the bag and all five of the Wall Street investment houses either went under or had to be bailed out by the federal government?
And do you remember how, when it was all over, liberals said it was actually the banks' fault for "deceiving" all those people into thinking they could afford to buy homes and that the banks should be punished for it and some of those people be allowed to keep their homes anyway? And do you remember how all this cost the government close to a trillion dollars and put the whole economy in a hole that we really haven't begun to dig ourselves out of yet?
Well, get ready because the whole thing is about to happen again.
Yes, believe it or not, the federal government is now startinganother initiative to force banks to lend to low-credit-rated blacks and Hispanics -- not just anybody but specifically blacks and Hispanics -- and is threatening -- and already imposing -- huge punitive fines if they don't. Moreover, this time they're going even further. They're going totake over the credit rating agencies and force them to change their standards to accommodate blacks and Hispanics so that nobody will have any idea who is a bad credit risk and who is not. In so many words, the government is about impose its will on the whole home-lending market and force another round of bad loans so that the banks are going to be looted once again so that even the federal government may not be able to bail them out this time.
The principle instrument this time is not the Justice Department, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as it was last time, but the brand-new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, designed by good old Elizabeth "Nobody-Ever-Made-It-On-Their-Own" Warren, which should really be called the Bureau for Bringing Down the Entire Economy. As reported in last Sunday's New York Post by Hoover Institution Media Fellow Paul Sperry, the CFPB has just announced that it is adopting a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" issues by the Interagency Task force on Fair Lending in 1994 that kicked off Attorney General Janet Reno's draconic enforcement of the Community Renewal Act. Part of the policy statement reads, "Applying different lending standards or offering different levels of assistance to applicants who are members of a protected [i.e., minority] class is permissible in some circumstances. Providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible if done in response to a court order." There are already plenty of court orders sitting around.
Just two weeks ago Wells Fargo caved to a Justice Department offensive and paid $175 million for alleged past discriminating against minority borrowers. All this occurred even though the bank received an "outstanding" grade in its most recent Community Reinvestment Act exam. The government did not even bother to prove discrimination in a single instance but relied instead on statistics showing lower rates of homeownership in minority neighborhoods. Thomas Perez, the Justice Department honcho who is spearheading this campaign, says banks discriminate "with a smile" and "fine print" and are "every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood." Nice objective evaluation there.
As in most such cases, Wells Fargo chickened out about going to court and refused to admit any wrongdoing but agreed to all kinds of diversity training and sensitivity counseling. The bank will have to "prominently display" a notice informing minority customers that they cannot be turned down for loans just because they are receiving public assistance such as unemployment benefits, welfare payments or food stamps. (Maybe they can even use food stamps for the down payment.) Wells Fargo must provide minority customers $50 million for down-payment and closing-cost assistance, including "Borrower Assistance Grants" of up to $15,000 per individual. It was also ordered to pay $125 million to as yet unnamed victims of previous discrimination. But get this! If those past victims don't show up, the money must be handed over to community organizing groups. President Obama, you have a job waiting for you if you lose office this fall.
Almost a dozen banks are under similar investigation and will be soon falling like dominoes unless one of them musters the courage to stand up to the Justice Department in court.
But the real destruction is going to be wrought by CFPB, created by Dodd-Frank and just getting started. Last week Richard Cordray, who is serving as a disputed recess appointee without the consent of the Senate, announced that not only will CFPB be going after banks but will also target the credit rating agencies that evaluate people's creditworthiness based on past performance in paying debts. They too will be vetted for racial discrimination. In May 2011, the non-partisan Policy and Economic Research Council completed what it described as the first evaluation of Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, the three credit rating agencies. The report concluded that in less than 1 percent of cases was a score changed by more than 25 points after a dispute process and that "consequential inaccuracies are rare." Moreover, "95 percent of disputing participants were satisfied with the outcomes of their disputes, suggesting widespread satisfaction" with the process. In other words, credit ratings are pretty accurate. Banks rely heavily on them and say that, if anything, the agencies tends to underestimate the rate at which minority buyers will default on mortgages.
So guess what happens next? Under the pretext of "regulating" the agencies, CFPB will hammer away, forcing them to upgrade the scores of blacks and Hispanics. Standards will be diluted or abandoned entirely and within a few years the banks will be flying blind with no reliable information on who is a good credit risk and who isn't. Does that sound like the formula for another mortgage meltdown? It sure does to me.
At this point in my story, it is customary for the journalist to proclaim that he isn't trying to protect the lenders but is really concerned with those unfortunate minority individuals who will end up with bad loans. Sperry follows this pattern by declaring, "In the end, it will be the minorities Obama and [Eric] Holder are trying to help who will be hurt most."
I think I'm going to have to depart from the tradition. I think what we are witnessing is the looting of America on behalf of minorities in a way that better end soon or we are going to bring the whole system down upon our heads.
With the current administration in power, the perception is growing among minorities that everything in the economy can be had for free and that President Obama and his administration are going to provide it for them. For instance, there is a scam going on around the country right now where con artists call up homeowners and tell them that President Obama has a new program where he is going to pay their electrical bills. All the homeowner has to do is provide his Social Security number and other personal information. The con game started in Michigan among minority populations in depressed cities such as Flint and Grand Rapids. It has now spread as far as far as Florida and Mississippi. More than 2,300 people in Michigan were bilked out of $1 million, another 10,000 have been swindled in New Jersey.
What is amazing is that all these people actually believe that President Obama is ready to pay their electrical bills. It is symptomatic of a rising tide of dependency and the growing sense that nobody has to be responsible for anything anymore and we can all live off "the rich." If we don't get these people out of office soon, there isn't going to be much left to pick over in the American economy


Hatch: Obama Holding Country Hostage With Tax Plan

Obama is pulling or Mulling over the same old "Hostage" Crap again!   He is a douchbag! I have a strong belief as an Independent  not to raise taxes now with the economy. He knows it to and is playing with the class Warfare crap again. He never says what he will do with it, we know it won't dent the debt, and we know it won't pay for any complete programs! So I wish he would get off this kick and worry about the economy. One more thing, his latest speeches are nothing but class warfare. He has no solutions, and we KNOW that this tax increase wont create Millions of Jobs!



White House: $1.2 Trillion Deficit in 2012

Just Like His Campaign spending........spending more than he takes in!!

Just so you know, this deficit is totally out of context and was certainly not built by President Obama:

The Obama administration projects a budget deficit of $1.211 trillion this year, though that is $116 billion lower than an estimate released earlier in the year. "This reflects lower-than-expected spending, partially offset by lower-than-expected receipts," Budget Director Jeffrey Zients wrote on the White House website. In unveiling the administration's midyear budget review, Zients reported that this year's deficit is estimated to be 7.8% of Gross Domestic Product. That is less than the 8.5% projected in a similar report in February. Deficits and overall federal debt -- approaching $17 trillion -- are major themes for Republican candidate Mitt Romney as he seeks to evict Obama from the White House.

Yes, you read that right. The federal government will spend well over $1 trillion more than it takes in this year, yet the White House is hailing its own revised numbers as good news. Barack Obama promised to halve the deficit he "inherited" (ie, voted for in the Senate and expanded as president) by this year. He hasn't done so. Not even close. This president has presided over four consecutive trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits, and by his own Treasury Secretary's admission, he has no plans to fix the problem. A certain someone might call these policies "unpatriotic."

UPDATE - It's worth recalling that the tax hikes on "the rich" Obama is currently demanding were all included in his FY 2013 budget, which still didn't even approach dealing with our long term structural deficits and debt. See the Geithner link above.


Liberal Columnist: These Devastating 'You Didn't Build That' Attacks Sure Are Racist

 I have a hatred for Liberals that place the Race Card! This Crap won't help them win an Election!!!

Like the rising of the sun in the east and its setting in the west, one can always count on some element of the Left to resort to the 'R-word' to shield President Obama from the consequences of his own words and actions. Today, the inevitable officially occurred. Take it away, Jonathan Chait:

Mitt Romney’s plan of blatantly lying about President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech is clearly drawing blood. But what makes the attack work so well is not so much the lie itself but the broader subtext of it. Watch Obama’s delivery in the snippet put together by this Republican ad: The key thing is that Obama is angry, and he’s talking not in his normal voice but in a “black dialect.” This strikes at the core of Obama’s entire political identity: a soft-spoken, reasonable African-American with a Kansas accent. From the moment he stepped onto the national stage, Obama’s deepest political fear was being seen as a “traditional” black politician, one who was demanding redistribution from white America on behalf of his fellow African-Americans.

Wow! Obama was speaking in his "black dialect" when he made those remarks? Does Chait have access to a special decoder ring that allows him to divine such dialectical interpretations? There's a whiff of racism here, alright, but it isn't emanating from where Chait thinks it is. As disgusting and obnoxious as it is, Chait's sub-moronic column is unalloyed good news. Liberals have moved from largely ignoring "you didn't build that," hoping it would magically go away, to shouting "out of context!" in unison, to flagrant, idiotic race-baiting. (MSNBC actually beat Chait to this punch, albeit from a slightly different perspective). Put bluntly, this is panic mode. The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel has an inkling of why the desperation is setting in:

The Obama campaign has elevated poll-testing and focus-grouping to near-clinical heights, and the results drive the president's every action: his policies, his campaign venues, his targeted demographics, his messaging. That Mr. Obama felt required—teeth-gritted—to address the "you didn't build that" meme means his vaunted focus groups are sounding alarms. The obsession with tested messages is precisely why the president's rare moments of candor—on free enterprise, on those who "cling to their guns and religion," on the need to "spread the wealth around"—are so revealing. They are a look at the real man.

Ed Morrissey also notes the Obama campaign's worries over the shrinking 'gender gap,' which is why his campaign has put out an ad lying about Mitt Romney's position on abortion:


Even the irredeemably liberal "fact-checker," Politifact, awards this spot a "pants on fire" rating. Why? Because like the majority of Americans, Romney is pro-life -- but he does not support outright bans, even in (extremely rare) cases of rape and incest. It's a desperate and false claim. But while we're on the subject of abortion policy extremism, do you know who voted three times against banning post-birth infanticide of babies who survived botched abortions, then lied about it? Take a wild guess. I'll leave you with two polling data points, one heartening, the other not so much:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting 49% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. The numbers are similar to the 49% to 43% advantage Romney enjoys on the question of who is trusted more to handle the economy.

An interesting -- although not necessarily meaningful -- catch by Business Insider: Four years ago today, the Rasmussen tracker had Obama leading McCain by the exact same margin, 49-44. Meanwhile, We Ask America has a poll out showing Obama ahead of Romney in must-win Ohio by eight points. In this survey, Romney actually leads with independents, but loses nearly 20 percent (!) of the Republican vote to Obama. Color me intensely skeptical. Obama didn't even come close to that sort of crossover appeal in 2008, when he was at his zenith of popularity.


ObamaCare Nightmare: $1 Trillion in New Taxes

It's been a month since the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare constitutional as a tax and now the CBO is out with new numbers showing the government takeover of the healthcare system calls for $1 trillion in new taxes. Joel Gehrke has the numbers:
The individual mandate — which the CBO calls a “penalty tax,” in apparent deference to Chief Justice John Roberts — will produce $55 billion in “penalty payments by uninsured individuals,” the CBO told House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a Tuesday letter. Of course, the framers of the law didn’t design the mandate as a tax, and so it produces less revenue than any other provision in the bill.

The “additional hospital insurance tax” is the largest tax increase in Obamacare, projected to bring in $318 billion in new revenues. According to the 2010 report from the Journal of Accountancy, this tax hits “high-income tax payers” — individuals making over $125,000 a year or households making over $250,000 a year.

The health care law gets another $216 billion from the “associated effects of coverage provisions on tax revenues,” while “reinsurance and risk adjustment collections” brings in another $184 billion. Fees on certain manufacturers and insurers generate $165 billion. Another $111 billion comes from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans.

Obamacare also demands “penalty payments by employers” to the tune of $106 billion. “Other revenue provisions” bring in $87 billion, per CBO.
FLASHBACK: "No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase."


It Worked: US GDP Drops to 1.5 Percent Growth in Second Quarter of 2012

I Love it....This article brings up so many good points about the Obama B.S. that he is trying to say!

Stagnant, at best. The Associated Press summarizes succinctly:

US economic growth slows to 1.5 percent annual rate from April-June, consumer spending weakens.

Reuters points out another interesting figure:

Gross domestic product expanded at a 1.5 percent annual rate between April and June, the weakest pace of growth since the third quarter of 2011, the Commerce Department said on Friday. Dow Jones consensus estimates forecast growth at a 1.3 percent pace. First-quarter growth was revised up to a 2.0 percent pace from the previously reported 1.9 percent. Output for the fourth quarter was raised to a 4.1 percent rate from 3.0 percent.

I guess the good news is that one of last year's quarterly reports understated our economic growth. The bad news is that this data would suggest an even starker deceleration in 2012. Not to worry, though -- I'm sure tax increases on job creators and half-a-trillion in unpaid for additional "stimulus" will do the trick. Then again, we shouldn't need any tricks; the president said his plan "worked," remember? Parting thought: Will Republicans somehow take this GDP statistic "out of context," too?

Friday, July 27, 2012

White House Leaks: What Does Axelrod Know, and How Does He Know It?

So is David Axelrod now in charge of the investigation into the May-June leaks that have jeopardized our troops and undermined our national security in what is arguably the single greatest breach of sensitive national security information in the modern era? Or has Axelrod, the top adviser at Obama’s re-election campaign, merely been briefed on the status of that investigation--ahead of the proper authorities, and ahead of the general public?

In any case, how could it be that a political operative is now speaking out on perhaps the most sensitive national security matters that the nation confronts? These questions come to mind in the wake of Axelrod’s Wednesday appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
Host Joe Scarborough said to Axelrod--in a statement, not a question--“It is very obvious that the White House is leaking classified information.” And how, exactly, did Axelrod respond?
Axelrod answered, “I can tell you that the president of the United States did not leak classified information, as Mitt Romney suggested yesterday, and he didn’t authorize the leak of information, as Mitt Romney suggested yesterday.”
Romney had, indeed, delivered a stinging attack on the leaks, declaring in a speech to the VFW on Tuesday, “This conduct is contemptible. It betrays our national interest.” Clearly, those words from the Republican challenger had rattled both the White House and the Obama re-election campaign. Thus, Axelrod was on TV the very next day, battling back. Axelrod’s message was intended to be political pacification: in effect, he was saying, Hey, folks, don’t worry about the leak issue; these are just partisan attacks from Barack Obama’s Republican opponent. So there’s nothing to see here, other than the usual political bickering.
But in fact, Axelrod’s words on “Morning Joe” represented a significant backpedaling for Axelrod, who on June 10 had told ABC News that the White House, as a whole--beyond just the President specifically--was not involved in the leaks. Interestingly, in that appearance, we can see that Axelrod continuously used the word “we” in referring to the White House. For a man who left the White House staff in February 2011--giving up his security clearance and thus all access to classified materials--Axelrod certainly sounded as if he were still working in the building. Let’s pause here. Eighteen months after leaving the White House, Axelrod is still able to give precise and informed commentary on a serious legal investigation. The new position, of as July 25, is that Axelrod can attest only to the President’s personal non-involvement in the leaks, as distinct from the rest of the White House.
Amazingly, the next day, Thursday, White House press secretary Jay Carney echoed Axelrod’s new line, assuring reporters that the President himself was not involved, while not offering the same assurance about the rest of the White House. So there we have it. Axelrod, from his Chicago political cockpit, calls the tune, and the White House press secretary, a federal employee, get up and dances to it.
I am willing to concede, for the moment, that the President had nothing to do with the leaks of classified material. (Although, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out on Fox on Thursday night, the President can unilaterally and instantaneously declassify anything, and so, as a result, no legal violation could be said to have occurred if the leaked document was leaked, directly or indirectly, by the Commander-in-Chief.) But that concession hardly ends the investigation of the White House; in fact, it begins the needed inquiry, because now we can reasonably infer, from both Axelrod and Carney, that, in fact, others at the White House might be behind the leaks.
Furthermore, we might ask: why the change? What has Axelrod learned, over the six weeks from June 10 to July 25, that has caused him to narrow his blanket denials--from the whole of the White House to just the President? Did the President personally tell Axelrod that he had nothing to do with the leaks? Or did someone else in the White House deliver the message to the campaign domo? Those would have been good follow-up questions for Scarborough on Wednesday, but, alas, Joe didn’t go there.
Instead, the MSNBC co-host, perhaps mindful of not overly antagonizing his liberal viewers, gave Axelrod softball questions, such as, "How do we stop such leaks in the future?" Axelrod’s answer: “You stop it by sending strong signals. Strong signals have been sent.”
Once again, we have to ask: exactly what, in God’s name, is Axelrod talking about? What “strong signals” have been sent? And by whom? Taking the President at his word--that he had nothing to do with the leaks--we still need to know what he has done, since, to deal with those around him who did leak? With whom, exactly, has he spoken? Did he call in his staff, one by one? Or as a group? And how does Axelrod know all this? It would certainly appear that Axelrod knows a lot more than the rest of us.
But that’s not how the system is supposed to work. Only in some bizarro world are private-sector political operatives in the middle of national security matters of any kind. Indeed, it’s highly questionable whether the chief architect of the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaigns should have been in the White House at all in the intervening years, attending National Security Council meetings. And without a doubt, Axelrod, as an outside political campaign adviser, should not be involved in any national security matter inside the US government.
In the best of times, such involvement raises questions of undue politicization of life-and-death foreign policy matters. And at times such as this, when senior members of both the active-duty military and the Congress, even Democrats, have said that the leaks could cost American lives and render our national security programs ineffective, Axelrod should be completely outside the decision loop. Answers about what the President did and did not know or say about a gravely serious issue should be coming from the White House itself. And not just from the press secretary, who, as we have seen, is taking his cues from the presidential campaign. Instead, we should be hearing from the chief of staff, or the White House legal counsel, or the Justice Department, or some other authorized government agency--not from the politicos at Obama-Biden 2012.
So now we can ask: since Axelrod knows so much, will he be contacted by the Justice Department officials who have been tasked to investigate the leak? That’s not bloody likely, of course, since those investigators were handpicked by Attorney General Eric Holder, the most political AG since John Mitchell.
In other words, the Holder investigation is nothing like the ambitious effort launched by the Bush 43 Justice Department in another leak case--the investigation of the Valerie Plame disclosure. That leak, from 2003, was a molehill compared to these many mountains of leaks today. And yet, even so, the Plame case led to the appointment of a fully empowered independent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald--an appointment demanded at the time by both Barack Obama and Joe Biden--whose prosecutorial actions transfixed Washington for the better part of four years. Many have called for such an independent counsel in this current leak case; not surprisingly, the Obama administration is staunchly opposed. But who am I to question hypocrisy in Washington?
For the sake of the country, we need to be serious now. That’s not a point of partisanship; that’s a point about the survival of the republic. If these leaks go unpunished, what’s the limit in the future? What restraints about national security will be felt by anyone with access to secret information?
So now let’s restate the key questions that need to be asked of David Axelrod. He has been outside of the White House for 18 months, and so he can no longer claim the executive privilege that would still protect, for example, Jay Carney. Let’s ask three questions:
First, why has your basic answer to the leak question changed from June 10 July 25?
Second, have you spoken with the President, or anyone on the White House/National Security Council staff about these leaks? This question should pertain to all the people in the Situation Room, and yes, to another veteran political operative, Tom Donilon–now, incredibly and improbably, the national security adviser.
Third, have you been contacted by any investigators from either the Justice Department or the Congress?
Okay, that’s enough--at least for now--on Axelrod.
Yet because this matter is so serious, we must now turn to those who have, to one degree or another, facilitated the White House culture of leaks.
Where has the rest of Washington been on this matter? Where are the leaders? Where are the guardians of important institutions? Where are the patriots?
The leaks in question emerged in May and June. And yet, where is the constant clamor from Wise Men, and Wise Women, for a crackdown on such recklessness? Where are the speeches and conferences and think-tank reports? Where is the steady drumbeat of newspaper editorials? And op-eds? Instead, we get a confederacy of silence, in which, with a few honorable exceptions such as Krauthammer, most “players” in DC would prefer not to jeopardize their “access” by calling out a fellow player for merely putting the country at risk.
We might further ask: where have the working reporters been? Why hasn’t Stephanie Cutter’s phone been ringing constantly with inquiries about her boss’s activities? Where are the investigative reporters seeking to find out who the leakers are? Actually, everyone in DC pretty much knows who the leakers are--one name, in particular, is Donilon. Yet, when it comes to sharing true news with their readers and viewers, most journalists, too, are part of the confederacy of silence.
Indeed, the political culture of Washington sees the leak story as mostly inside-the-beltway fun and games. Who’s got the best stuff? Who’s going to sell the most books? And it’s all sort of a joke on the American people. You know them: the folks out beyond the Beltway somewhere who pay the taxes, send their sons and daughters off to war, and hope, even now, that their leaders will play fairly with them. But as cases such as this prove, the joke is on the folks out there.
And oh yes, the joke is also on the Pakistani doctor who helped the US kill bin Laden. He is now in a Pakistani prison for 33 years, and nobody should doubt that he will not survive the full length of that sentence, by accident or design. And the joke is on the Yemenis who have had to flee their country and go into hiding, once their involvement in US drone strikes in that country was detailed. And the joke is on the Israelis, who must live with the impending threat of a nuclear Iran, realizing that the leaks exposed and damaged not only America’s anti-nuclear efforts, but also their own.
These jokes, of course, are not funny at all. This issue is deadly serious. The fate of America in the 21st century is now at risk. And so the DC confederacy of silence could well be the prelude to the awful silencing of American greatness, maybe even our national survival as a world leader.
So that leaves the Congress as the last hope for a serious, silence-breaking investigation. Committees on Capitol Hill possess full investigative powers, including the power of the subpoena, as we saw, for instance, in the Watergate investigation.
Now we must ask: will leaders on Capitol Hill, on both sides of the aisle, face up to the challenge posed by these leaks and do their investigative duty? That is, their their sworn duty, because every Member of Congress has taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Is the Congress still as good as its word? We’ll deal that question, and others, in future articles.


White House Denies Obama Returned Churchill Bust to UK Ambassador

More Obama B.S.!!!

On Thursday Mitt Romney said he was looking forward to returning the bust of Winston Churchill to the White House. If you recall, it had been loaned to the White House and Obama sent it back. Romney, visiting the UK, said he would bring it back. Everyone had a few laughs at the jab and all went back to normal.

But then, the White House got involved. White House spokesman, Dan Pfeiffer, wrote on the White House website that the bust had never left the White House.
Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”
This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.
That settles it, right?
You see, the claim is not 100% false. It’s actually true. Says who? Why, Media Matters, in fact.
A British Embassy spokesman said: “The bust of Sir Winston Churchill by Sir Jacob Epstein was uniquely lent to a foreign head of state, President George W Bush, from the Government Art Collection in the wake of 9/11 as a signal of the strong transatlantic relationship.
“It was lent for the first term of office of President Bush. When the President was elected for his second and final term, the loan was extended until January 2009.
“The new President has decided not to continue this loan and the bust has now been returned. It is on display at the Ambassador’s Residence.
Emphasis mine.
So, who’s lying? Obviously, the bust did leave the White House, went on display at the Ambassador’s Residence, and then made its way back to the White House.
Diplomats were at first reluctant to discuss the whereabouts of the Churchill bronze, after its ejection from the seat of American power. But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden’s official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London.
Poor Team Obama. Can’t keep the lies straight.
There’s been some debate on what Pfeiffer said. In order to clear up what he said in the White House post linked above, let’s look at how he tweeted it:
You see that? He said it was a “false rumor that POTUS gave back” the bust. Clearly, since the bust was in the Ambassador’s house, POTUS did, in fact, give it back. Otherwise, words have no meaning.
UPDATE: Jake Tapper of ABC got to the bottom of the story: there are two Churchill busts. One is permanently stored in the Presidential Residence of the White House, given to the White House during the Nixon Years. The one stored in the Oval Office during George W. Bush's administration was on loan from the UK's government art collection.
Had Dan Pfeiffer explained this distinction, there wouldn't be any confusion, but to prevent the White House from admitting that the bust in the Oval Office had, in fact, been removed, he chose to omit this clarifying information.