As Bronwyn reported yesterday, my governor, Nikki Haley, endorsed Romney on Friday. This is important since our primary is the third one in the New Year. Romney was glad for it, too, saying people were “lining up outside her door” to get this coveted endorsement. Below is a good interview with Gov. Haley, conducted by Greta van Susteren (h/t Bronwyn):

Nice, right? But then things went downhill pretty quickly. Check out this sexist description of Gov. Haley in WaPo. Apparently, for this writer, Ned Martel, a woman is either Church Lady” or a “Real Housewife”:

[snip] In person, she cuts an indefatigable and glamourous figure. She eschews a Church Lady mien for something more Real Housewife: fit, attractive and encased in suits that stop just below the elbow and just above the knee. And she says often how her job is sales, selling corporate chief executives on South Carolina with many lures. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Welcome to being a woman in politics in the United States.

The second story is bad (h/t to The New Agenda). It could easily be entitled, “Whistleblower Slamdunked,” but it’s headline is this: “Former N.B.A. Employee Says Sexual Harassment Concerns Were Ignored.” And why is he a “former employee”? Because he had the audacity to stand up for the women who were being sexually harassed, that’s why.

Now, I should say at the outset that I have very little respect for the N.B.A. I used to watch it, but over time, it seems to me that a number of players are just a bunch of thugs. Arrests have piled up, fights on court, all kinds of actions that have marred the game. Unfortunately, this attitude is now being evidenced in the college game, with the melee between Cincinnati and Xavier Universities recently. To label it as unsportsmanlike is a gross understatement. One of Xavier’s players, Tu Holloway, said in a press conference afterward that some Cincinnati player was calling them out before the game. He said, “We got disrespected a little bit before the game…We are grown men over there. we got a bunch of gangstas in the locker room, not thugs, but tough guys on the court…”

I beg to differ. You are a bunch of thugs, and the last ten seconds of the game showed that clearly.

Now, back to the N.B.A. Security official, Warren Glover. This is a long story, with one incident after another occurring to women who had the misfortune to work for this organization. I recommend you read the whole thing to get an idea of the depth of sexism, misogyny, and sexual harassment inherent in this organization. It is truly shocking, and appalling. Here is just the beginning of it:

A former N.B.A. security official says that he repeatedly warned his superiors that women in the office were being sexually harassed or discriminated against, but that his concerns were ignored and that he was ultimately fired for his actions on the women’s behalf. He is suing the league for lost wages and damages.

Warren Glover, 50, was fired as a security director in July, after 10 years with the N.B.A., despite a glowing performance record for most of his tenure, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday morning in New York State Supreme Court. In the suit, Glover accuses senior N.B.A. security officials of creating a “hostile work environment” in which he was “demeaned,” “treated differently from other employees” and denied promotions because of his willingness to speak out.

In one instance, Glover said a senior security official made sexual advances toward a female colleague, then demeaned her publicly when she rejected his advances. In another, a different security official proposed using sexually inappropriate material as part of a presentation to N.B.A. players. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It gets much, much worse when you read the extent of the sexual harassment women to which women have been subjected there. I would like to commend Mr. Glover for doing the right thing. He is truly a stand up guy.

And now for the ugly, though the story about the “student-athletes” brawling would qualify. But this is about the OWS “protesters,” and again, they, too could qualify as thugs. In Seattle recently, not only did they try to block the ports (and really, just what the hell were they trying to accomplish with impeding the rights of workers to work???). The “protesters” were throwing paint at the police, which isn’t the worst part, except they hit a police horse with it, and that pisses me off. In addition to paint, they threw BRICKS and REBAR. You know, rebar, “reinforced steel.” Yeah, I’d say the “thug” moniker is well deserved, not to mention CRIMINAL. Enough with this crap. Throw them all in the slammer, I say. They interrupt workers? Throw them in jail. Impede traffic intentionally? Throw them in the slammer. Hurl dangerous objects at police and others? Throw their asses in jail and charge them with assault with a deadly weapon, because bricks and rebar would certainly qualify. Enough with this crap already.

Yuck, blech. With the exception of the first story, I realize this might leave a bad taste in one’s mouth. Allow me to end, then, with a little holiday cheer. This combines one of my favorite songs, and my love for “Glee”:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Whew, I feel better. Hope you do, too. Have a good weekend, everyone.

I suspect most of you did not catch the delusional part of Newt’s statement. Let me enlighten you.

Newt genuinely believes that a consultant working the corridors of K Street in Washington, DC and getting paid by government funded institutions is the “private sector.” That, boys and girls, is the heart of the problem, not just with Newt, but with Washington. Let’s assume that Newt offered “dandy” advice to Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac is a creation of the Federal Government. It was not set up by a group of private investors. And why did they hire Newt? Because he wrote voluminous histories on the real estate market in the United States? Because he wrote extensively on the relationship between home ownership and economic growth? HELL NO. (I challenge you to find anything that Newt wrote as a scholar on these issues).

Nope. He played the Washington, DC insiders game and was trading on his past as Speaker of the House. He was hired to give Freddie Mac advice on how to keep Congress as a financial ally. Newt was not paid to tell Freddie Mac to divest itself it rely solely on the free market. Just wait till the rest of the client list at the company Gingrich set up comes to light. None of the clients were private entrepreneurs seeking his advice on how to start a new business independent of getting Federal dollars.

But Newt isn’t the only one who loves to suck on the tit of Uncle Sam. If you work for a company like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman or Booz Allen and most of your operation’s revenues come from US Government contracts, you are a defacto government employee. You are getting paid out of tax payer dollars. The unfortunate reality is an growing percentage of the US economy is driven by individuals and corporations living off of tax payer dollars.

At least Mitt Romney knows what it is like to raise capital in the private sector in order to create and fund a business envisioned by people who were not financially dependent on a Federal paycheck. But Romney has failed to make this case in a compelling way.

Newt is welcome to pretend that he is a private sector kind of guy. But if he manages to secure the Republican nod the Democrats will shred him and expose him as an addict of big government on par with any Democrat.

There is a reason why I am mentioning this. I just have to share what one of the owners of the development said while we were chatting. She said she didn’t know where we stood politically, but that for their purposes, they were really glad Obama was president. Why? Because a whole bunch of Americans are buying property down there. People are upset that they may be taxed up to (and above?) half of their income. The developer went on to say that she wasn’t just talking about people who were wealthy, but like a plumber who had worked hard all of his life, and saved his money for his retirement.

I told her that I am okay with being taxed up to 30% (which she thought was exorbitant), but any more than that seemed excessive, especially when there are so many corporate loopholes that need to be plugged, not to mention those who commit tax evasion (like Charlie Rangel and Timmy Geithner, to name two). Since we are regular donors to a number of worthy causes of OUR choice, we want to be able to continue giving to those organizations rather than the government taking half (or more) of our income.

Anyway, I thought that was pretty interesting to hear from her, and telling, too.

Seems those OWSers are still hanging around. Yawn. Glad Philly arrested a bunch of them. How they have gotten so much ink and air time on so vague a message is beyond me, but that’s our media. Go figure.

It’s kinda like the AP story I saw today highlighting the debate flubs of the Republican candidates, “Fact Check: GOP Field Flubs, Big And Small.” I am not suggesting that the media NOT cover these things, of course they should. But if they are going to highlight the GOP flubs, they sure as hell better highlight the DNC flubs, too. Obama easily has as many malapropisms as Bush, though you’d never know it from the MSM. And while this article is focusing on Civics, one could easily focus on Obama’s claim that if Congress won’t act, he will independently of them. Talk about a blatant disregard for the Constitution at best, and ignorance of the three branches at worse. Never mind the Great Lakes in Oregon, or the 57 states, or any number of malapropisms from Obama. Only the GOP flubs are fodder for the media. Whatever.

And one last thing I want to mention, speaking of the media. If you have already heard about this while I was gone, my apologies. But get this – Holder is telling The Daily Caller to stop reporting on the calls for him to resign. I am not kidding. But what is WORSE is that those in the media whose job it is to be watchdogs for this kind of thing are just ignoring Holder’s attempt at censorship. Huh? From The Daily Caller:

[snip] The groups’ silence contrasts with their vigorous defense against Republican critics of the news media, and contrasts with the praise given to the media’s aggressive coverage of decisions by officials in George W. Bush’s presidency.

The media watchdogs’ silence comes as President Barack Obama’s administration faces political peril with public approval having fallen to the level held by President Jimmy Carter. A Holder resignation would likely add to the administration’s immediate problems, and increase the GOP’s 2012 momentum.

Attorney General John Ashcroft “never asked a reporter to stop reporting on a subject, no matter how uncomfortable it may have been,” said Mark Corallo, who served as Ashcroft’s press secretary during his 2001 to 2005 term, when many media articles painted Ashcroft as a proponent of excessive police powers after 9/11.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. … We understood that we would take a lot of heat,” he said. “Freedom of speech and of the press — our wonderful First Amendment — allowed the media to cover things that made us uncomfortable.”

The controversy began on Nov. 29, when TheDC’s reporter asked Holder about congressional calls for his resignation. The question prompted the nation’s top law enforcement official to point his finger at the reporter and demand that “you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.”

“I don’t recall [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales ever talking with a reporter like that — ever,” said a former department official. In 2007, Gonzales was subject to numerous critical articles following Democratic legislators’ investigations into the administration’s decision to fire several district attorneys, all of whom had earlier been hired for political slots by the same administration. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, which includes specifics about just what the media “watchdogs” did report on after this attempt to silence The DC.)

Uh, yeah, no. And believe you me, I was all over anything negative (IMO) the Bush Administration did, and Gonzales in particular. But I don’t recall Ashcroft or Gonzales trying to silence factual reports of their activities, or calls for resignations, either.

Okay, that’s it for me for now. Too many interruptions with the tree guys here and the fence being delivered, etc., etc. So, it is up to you now. What’s on your minds?

As an aside, ACORN has also been involved in the OWS movement. I am sure that is a HUGE surprise – not. And I am sure you would not be surprised to learn they were also shredding documents as fast as they could to cover that involvement up. But I digress.

Yes, former Rep. Davis admitted that the Democrats are essentially using the talking point that Voter ID disenfranchises voters because it would impede their ability to cheat (WordPress won’t allow the embed code, but here is the link to watch the video):

Top Democrats are aggressively pushing the claim that Republicans’ worries about voter fraud are an insincere excuse to suppress voting by African-Americans and Hispanics.

But former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told The Daily Caller that anti-fraud measures are needed to protect African-Americans from corrupt political bosses — many of them African-Americans themselves — who run Democratic Party machines in the South.

[snip]

“What I have seen in my state, in my region, is the the most aggressive practitioners of voter-fraud are local machines who are tied lock, stock and barrel to the special interests in their communities — the landfills, the casino operators — and they’re cooking the [ballot] boxes on election day, they’re manufacturing absentee ballots, they’re voting [in the names of] people named Donald Duck, because they want to control politics and thwart progress,” he told TheDC.

“People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals.” (Click here to read the rest.)

While I was fairly certain this was going on, especially after the 2008 election, for a former Democratic Representative to confirm it is startling.

And this is especially poignant here in South Carolina, where the Democrats have been screaming bloody murder about the new Voter ID law set to go into effect in January. An anchor at MSNBC claimed it would be “electoral genocide” that would disenfranchise blacks in the state. Even considering the source, that is dangerous rhetoric indeed.

ABC News reported that Voter ID lawwill be taking place in a number of other states in 2012, as well, tripling the number of states requiring a photo ID. But even in this article, the way information is presented seems a bit skewed:

[snip]A report from New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice showed that in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, all of which will enact stricter photo ID laws before the 2012 election, 3.2 million potential voters do not have the state-issued ID that will be required for them to vote.

Lawrence Norden, an author of the Brennan Center report, said he “absolutely” thinks the new ID laws could impact the outcome of the election.

“We’re not claiming that all 3.2 million, in the case of voter ID laws, are actually not going to be able to vote,” Norden said. “But what we are saying is, it’s going to make it harder for those people to vote and some portion of them are probably not going to be able to vote even though they want to.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh huh. No, they aren’t claiming that all those folks won’t get a chance to vote, but they sure do like to IMPLY it, seems to me.

Well, at least here in South Cackalacki, people who could not get to the DMV for lack of a vehicle or ride, people were given the option of getting a ride to the DMV FREE OF CHARGE. Want to know how many residents took the State up on its offer? You might want to sit down for this, if you aren’t already: 25. Yes, twenty-five people used this free service.

Here’s the thing: former Representative Davis has pulled back the curtain on the real reason there is such a brouhaha being waged by the Democrats over voter ID. It will impede Democratic Party bosses from committing rampant voter fraud, up to FIFTY PERCENT in some locales. He is absolutely right when he makes this claim:

“People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals.”

Amen to that. I would extend that to anyone who cares about our democracy, our right to our own vote, our right to have elections that are fair and free of election shenanigans, have no business defending these individuals, or practices. Uh, yeah – not to mention that voter fraud is also ILLEGAL.

And I would take that one step further – it is immoral, and unethical, to commit voter fraud. This “Win At All Cost” mentality that has infected this nation is a blight, and must be stopped. We should guard closely, jealously, the authentic vote, otherwise our entire system is a sham. Never again should we have to question the authenticity of a vote, an election, or even a caucus, as a result of rampant fraud.

But even more, this faux outrage over the alleged disenfranchisement of blacks (and Hispanics) when this sort of fraud is being perpetrated by those claiming disenfranchisement. is insulting in the extreme, and insulting to the hard work of those who fought so hard to get their community the right to vote.

It reminds me of this woman, a Civil Rights Worker, who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., and her “grief” at witnessing disenfranchisement at the hands of young black men in Indiana (4:00 mark to 6:05 mark):

Click here to view the embedded video.

It causes me grief, too, for her community, and for all Americans. As the election season heats up, every single one of us, regardless of race or ethnicity, should be able to count on our vote counting for something. Thank heavens for the courage of people like Artur Davis, for speaking truth to power, and outing the Democrats for their disingenuous claim over Voter ID. It is our right to have free, and fair elections, and anyone found to be committing voter fraud should have the full force of the law brought down upon them.

The right to vote, and the right to an honest outcome, was the American Way. And it needs to be again as we embark upon another election season. Anything less is unacceptable.

What do you think?

The Iowa State poll of likely caucus-goers has Herman Cain leading at 25%, Ron Paul running a hard second with 20% and Mitt Romney trailing respectably in third with 16%. But the surprise dark horse coming out of the Iowa cornfields is “Can’t Decide” in fourth place beating out “outsider” Rick Perry and straw poll winner Michele Bachmann.  From GlobeGazette’s Poll: GOP race up for grabs in Iowa

“Can’t decide” polled 8.1 percent — more than Texas Gov. Rick Perry (7.9 percent), Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachman (7.6 percent), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (4.8 percent) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (4.7 percent). Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who has not campaigned in Iowa, received no support. “Other” polled 5.8 percent.

But with 44 days to go until the Iowa caucus, the race horses are showing the strain…

The now camera-shy and newly protected by Secret Service leader, Cain, seemed off stride and distracted by a higher calling at the Holy Land Experience in Florida on Friday.

“This feels like a pulpit, and I am a preacher,” Cain said from his spot on the auditorium stage. “It’s just a natural thing when I get in this setting.”

Holding strong in second place, Ron Paul’s mild mannered midnight ride warning of “The Fed” and the debt has won him a loyal following, but it has yet to liberate him from the obscuring fly on the MSM’s lens.

Third placed Mitt Romney, who has been hugging the rails fearful that the careful jockeying of his epic run for the White House may yet slip on the blank pages of his records as governor, slid on Mitt/ObamaCare, or stumble on his unpardonable compassion as a careful leader, has now decided to make a bold play for a strong finish in Iowa by focusing on … the economy.

But smart money is betting on a “Can’t Decide” surge in Iowa, after all ”Can’t Decide” is now running in fourth and is the fallback choice of 22% .

But hard on the hoofs of the Iowa caucus is the New Hampshire primary.  There the race has Romney (29%) and Gingrich (27%) in a dead heat.   But Gingrich seems to be struggling to push past Romney’s well-groomed canter.  Could it be the extra weight of “non-lobbyist” consulting fees for health care and Freddie Mac in his saddlebag?   Not willing to fade away, Gingrich is “Setting the Record Straight” on 16 issues and distinguishing himself as the anti-Clinton candidate (an adulterer, without the perjury).  From Answering the Attacks | Newt Gingrich 2012 :

“he [Gingrich] had admitted to having an extramarital affair during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.  What these accusers are ignoring is that the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony.”

The end of the primary race is 8 months away.  Plenty of time for anything and everything to happen.

Will Gingrich continue to rise?  Or will he come up lame like Bachmann, Perry and Cain before him?  Can a long shot still breakaway from the back of the pack?  Will social conservatism be enough to move Rick Santorum ahead?  Has Romney captured too much of the well-groomed Mormon politician vote for Huntsman to become a front runner or even catch up with main pack?  Will Roemer and Johnson ever get the racing officials to open the gates and the media to remove their blinders?  Or will they switch fields to run among the Independents and  Libertarians?

Officially President Obama runs alone in the Democratic primary race, but his PAC funding is down.

Earlier this year, Bill Burton left the White House to help create a pro-Obama fund-raising group with a goal of raising $100 million, aiming to mimic the success of recent Republican efforts.

So far, he’s falling short.

Many of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors aren’t planning to support his organization, either because they’re unhappy with Mr. Obama or disillusioned with politics in general. There’s also this fund-raising fact of life: Wealthy donors are more likely to open up their wallets to defeat a sitting president than to protect one.

Anyone else see the shadow racer, “Don’t Want”, flanking both Obama and the Republican pack?  And could “Don’t Want” take the lead in both parties and hold it?

Peter Schweizer has written a new book, Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison (available soon through Amazon). In it, he details some mighty interesting observations about how much Obama’s cronies have benefited since he took office. The Daily Beast had an excerpt, some of which I will share with you here, beginning with this:

When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready projects” to build roads; billions more for developing alternative-energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a “smart grid” for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”

Really?

[...]

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

Shocking, isn’t it? I know none of us should really be surprised. There is so, so much more, even to this excerpt, which I encourage you to read in its entirety.

But I have just one more, pertinent to this whole issue of “green” technology companies: [snip]

One might think that the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department’s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants. Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee and was a bundler himself, was the campaign’s “liaison to Silicon Valley.” His responsibilities included fundraising, recruiting more bundlers, and managing Obama’s relationship with a cadre of very wealthy donors. After the 2008 campaign, Spinner joined the Department of Energy as the “chief strategic operations officer” for the loan programs. A lot of the money he helped hand out went to that same cadre of wealthy Silicon Valley campaign donors. He also sat on the White House Business Council, which is made up of Obama-supporting corporate executives.

Again, Mr. Schweizer’s book will be out Nov. 15, from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. It would make a great stocking stuffer.

But it is not just green companies which are benefiting from Obama’s largesse at our expense. Over the weekend, news broke that the Obama Administration has spent $443 MILLION of our taxpaying dollars to purchase a smallpox vaccine. You read that right – SMALLPOX vaccine. If you are thinking, “I thought that had been essentially eradicated,” you would be right. What is worse, though, is that this particular vaccine has not even been tested yet, and might not even work. Why, then would our government be spending so much money? You know the answer. From the LA Times:

[snip] Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world’s richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.

When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company’s financial demands, senior officials replaced the government’s lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.

But wait – it gets worse:

When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.

That’s right – it was a NO-BID contract:

Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a “sole-source” procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation’s biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government’s specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews. (Click here to read the rest of this excellent article.)

Are you freakin’ kidding me?? Never mind that the nation already has enough smallpox vaccine to vaccinate every man, women, and child should it ever rear its ugly head again ($1 billion worth, according to the LA Times article), but they don’t even know if this new one even WORKS!

Wow. So glad Obama feels free to let our money run through his fingers like water. I am glad, though, that there are intrepid reporters out there ferreting out this information, from Peter Schweizer to David Willman at the LA Times, at least some people will not let this go under the radar. Nor should it – this is OUR money, and our nation is in a terrible economic fix. For Obama to act as if there is an unending pot of our money to pay back his donors is simply wrong, and must be stopped.

And these companies can start paying us back any ol’ time. What do you think?

You might recall, Obama tried this very same phrase back in 2008 with John McCain. It didn’t get much traction then, but that hasn’t stopped Obama from trotting it back out now, trying to scare the crap out of people and malign the Republicans all at the same time.

And may I digress for a moment and say, this whole thing about forgiving student loans at OUR expense pisses me off. I just paid off my student loans last month. I am not kidding. It is expensive to go to graduate school in New York City and Boston, but I did it because that is what I needed to do for ordination. No one forgave my loans, no one helped pay off my loans, and I damn sure didn’t ask my fellow taxpayers to cover the debt I CHOSE to incur. Just sayin’. Frankly, I do not think MoveOn.org should be dictating our public policy. But that’s me.

Ahem. But that is precisely what Obama is talking about doing in his current jaunt around the country at our expense, trying to get back the 20-somethings who have become disenchanted with The One. But it is not just at our financial expense, but at the expense of our Constitution. There is a reason we have checks and balances, and it is precisely to keep the president from acting as King. But that is not stopping the so-called Constitutional Scholar in Chief. No sirree. His claims belittling Republicans and Congress have gotten out of hand, and his rhetoric is negative, to put it mildly.

One Congressman who is not taking it sitting down is Rep. Paul Ryan. Ryan is fighting back against Obama’s allegations that the reason he willfully plans to violate the Constitution (and just WHEN is someone going to call him on that) is because those horrible Republicans will not pass any of his plans, damn their eyes. Not only does Ryan speak out against the plans, but claims, rightfully, IMHO, that Obama is “sowing social unrest.” I could not agree with him more (Photo by US Embassy Kabul):

“Instead of working together where we agree, the president has opted for divisive rhetoric and the broken politics of the past,” Ryan will say, according to speech excerpts. “He is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.”

“Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless,” Ryan also plans to say.

[...]

“Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment,” Ryan says, according to his prepared remarks.

“This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger. Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless.” (Click here to read the rest.)

You tell ‘em, Rep. Ryan – that is PRECISELY what Obama is doing. He is playing people off each other, threatening them with doom and gloom should they not keep him in the White House, like the past 3 years have been anything to crow about (continued high unemployment, continued low house sales, escalating health costs, etc.).

Obama’s fear-mongering in an attempt to keep people in his camp is disingenuous at best, especially given his lack of effort in actually working with the House, and his convenient amnesia that the Senate is controlled by Democrats. I am glad Rep. Paul Ryan is standing up to Obama, and calling him out on his divisive rhetoric. It reminds me of why I wish he was running for president. Someone who actually has a grasp of economics seems like a mighty good choice to me right now, not to mention someone who doesn’t antagonize half of the nation.

But hey, that’s Mr. Unity Hope and Change for you – you can bet if he says something, the exact opposite is the case, at least as far as I can tell. How about you?

Seriously – how can that possibly be? And yet, that seems to be her take:

The call by some members of the black media for African Americans to support President Obama in racial solidarity is a terrible idea. Just as terrible as women supporting women only because of their sex, or any other group viewing the world solely through the narrow prism of their own experience.

If pursued and played by Obama, it would be the worst thing not only for his reelection campaign but also for the country. The man who was elected on a promise of unity — neither black nor white nor red nor blue — can’t now play the race card. Any of his supporters who play that hand will be doing a disservice to themselves and to the nation.

How did this come about?

As Obama’s approval has been slipping, some leaders in the African American media have begun calling on blacks to ignore their concerns and just vote black. Leading the pack is radio host Tom Joyner, who reaches an astonishing one in four black adults. Maybe we could just have Joyner and Rush Limbaugh wrestle each other’s ideas to the mat and skip these tedious debates, primaries and conventions.

Joyner is blunt with his 8 million listeners: “Stick together, black people.”

Again I ask – where the hell Was Ms. Parker in 2008? This is not news. This is SOP for the Obama Campaign. Just the other day, I mentioned Obama’s National Co-Chair, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., and his threats to House members of the Black Caucus to toe the line and stand behind Obama, or face primary challengers (and then doing it anyway, even if they did stab Hillary Clinton in the back and get on board).

But wait, it gets even better with THIS claim by Ms. Parker:

Obama hasn’t played the race card overtly, though recently he did call on a mostly African American audience at the annual Congressional Black Caucus Awards dinner to kick off their bedroom slippers and put on their marching shoes. “Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on,” he said. “We’ve got work to do.”

WHAT? Obama has not overtly played the race card? Is she for real? Good grief, where has she been? Did she take one of Sir Richard Branson’s flights to outer space? Has she been living in East Mongolia? Has she not been paying any attention at ALL?

I am just shaking my head in disgust at this revisionist history from Ms. Parker’s keyboard. From Obama’s depiction of John McCain’s campaign as racist (remember this quote? “”And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me…”), to attacking Geraldine Ferraro and labeling her a racist for something he himself said, forcing her to resign from the Hillary Campaign, Obama has done nothing BUT play the race card. Hell, he just called the Tea Party racist a few months ago!

Ms Parker concludes:

This country has transcended much that was hideous and painful in the course of our evolution. It would be a shame to turn back now.

That it has, but it sure ass hell hasn’t stopped the Obama Campaign,the Obama Administration, and the DNC from labeling anyone who doesn’t support Obama as racists.

For the life of me, I don’t know how Ms. Parker has missed this over the past 3 years, but perhaps you could all remind her of the many and different ways Obama and his Minions have played the race card, from the way the DOJ has handled cases (or not), the assumption of the racist Cambridge police officer, Rep. Clyburn claiming that all ofd Obama’s problems come down to “black vs. white,” and so, so many more. Have at it!

They are creating an opportunity for people who are not part of the establishment of either party to get on the presidential ballot. While I cannot profess to know much about the organization behind this movement, the idea itself is an intriguing one:

For the 68 percent of Americans who said in an ABC/Washington Post poll released Wednesday that they had a negative view of government, the possibility of having a presidential candidate free of the currently gridlocked political parties could be just a few clicks away.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit Americans Elect has collected petition signatures – millions of them [1.6 million in California alone] – in all 50 states to put a “candidate of the people” on the ballot in November 2012. This candidate would be selected through an online draft and nomination process instead of through the traditional Republican and Democratic parties primary and caucus schedule.

“We are creating competition for all these folks who are politically homeless,” said Elliot Ackerman, Americans Elect’s chief operating officer. “A lot of the folks that engage with us are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and those people don’t really have a voice in our political system right now. What we’re doing is really creating an incentive structure so that those individuals will be competed for.”

I understand the sentiment. I too have felt politically homeless since I witnessed the shenanigans of Democrats in the 2008 primaries. Whether one is in favor of Hillary Clinton or not, for her to have achieved a virtual tie in delegates, lead in the popular vote and still be cast aside at the Convention as the clear loser was the final disgrace in a contest fraught with sexist hazing and character assassination. Her opponent, however, received rose petals and caresses from the media daily, coupled with a startling lack of examination for his pie-in-the-sky – and often contradictory — campaign promises.

But Hillary’s treatment – and the disgraceful treatment her 18,000,000 supporters received at the hands of the mainstream media had another effect on the populace. We saw that the media, in the name of anointing their favored candidate was not above calling millions of Americans racist to threaten and keep them in line. Not to mention fellow Democrats calling us every dirty name in the book for supporting the “ho” and not the “bro.”

When we were called “low information, dried-up Archie Bunkers” by pundits and party powerful alike, many of us for the first time stepped back from the party we stood with for many years, ostracized and rejected. For the first time we felt what it must be like to be a conservative in this country, insulted regularly by the bulk of mainstream media and by many elitists in the DNC. As someone who made hundreds of GOTV calls around the country, I found that the “backwoods hillbilly” meme the media tried to sell was a lie. The mainstream media continues to hemorrhage credibility. There are many like me, waking up from a kool-aid stupor, no longer willing to accept demagogic ranting of the left or right at face value when its sole purpose is to fill Party coffers.

Continued gridlock in Washington, the refusal of either side to let productive legislation be crafted if it is contrary to the interests of politicians’ powerful backers, or partisan jockeying to prevent the other side from getting credit for a win has rendered us, for all intents and purposes, without advocates in Washington – regardless of where we fit in the progressive/conservative spectrum.

So far, the group has secured a spot on the ballot in six states, has collected the required number of signatures in four states and has about half the necessary signatures in four other states. Americans Elect spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel said the group would begin the petition process in seven more states within the week.

[snip]

The eventual nominee can be a member of either party or an independent but must chose a vice presidential running mate who is from a different party. Ackerman said he expected many of the losing GOP presidential candidates to move into the Americans Elect primary process after Republicans chose their nominee.

[snip]

“In the primaries you have to go far to the right or far to the left and tickets are having a hard time tacking back to the center,” he said. “Americans Elect allows a ticket to run authentically without having to go to extremes in the primary.”

A coalition ticket is an inviting notion although I cannot imagine who would be willing to abandon their own party in order to couple with the ‘enemy.’ A Sarah Palin perhaps…

While I am skeptical an idea like this can take hold to upend those currently in control of our two parties, its very existence, along with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street should really give those in power something to worry about. Democrats have mistakenly tried to co-opt the current disorganized (and sometimes confused) OWS protests as their own version of the more conservative Tea Party movement, yet increasingly OWS is making clear they feel President Obama has sold out to Wall Street. Republicans also worked to co-opt the Tea Party movement, with mixed results.

Congressional approval is at an all time low. President Obama’s poll numbers continue to tank. Polling also reports that Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, even the currently downward trending Gov. Rick Perry could all beat Obama next year. Even still, Republicans are not all that enthusiastic about their choices. Neither party is anxious to undo the Gordian knot of special (read big money) interests that actually do the governing in this country. The phrase “politically homeless” rings as true as it is painful. To feel like it is not possible to trust the majority of our elected officials to do the right thing leaves many feeling bound and gagged. Americans are inching closer to that pitchfork moment.

Is the Americans Elect concept a good one? If so, who would you want on such a coalition ticket? And do you think there is any hope we can get ever move past the current plutocracy? We don’t want to split the vote and keep an ineffectual incumbent in office, but in the long run would enough dissatisfaction expressed through these myriad movements around the country actually lead to reform of our system?

Only when the failing crop currently in office know they are about to lose their jobs do we have a prayer that they will finally start to do their jobs. And yet, if they are fired, as long as they can count on a ritzy “K” street paycheck or some cushy commentating gig on CNN – what muscles can we flex to keep them honest? The teat is still flowing…

And it is pissing me off. Seriously. I don’t know if it is the off-the-chart pain levels I am enduring, or what, but it is pissing me off that – all of a sudden – the people who were in a position to make clear how inept Obama was, is, and would be, failed to convey that message adequately. No, not Cheney – I mean the media and Democratic political pundits who should have known, and most likely did know, better, but went-along-to-get-along so they could keep blathering on CNN, MSNBC, or whatever channel would have them. They rode this wave of a created back story of who Obama was, one that did not match the REALITY of who he was, by his handlers and string pullers rather than DOING THEIR JOBS, and now, NOW, they are coming out saying, “oh, yeah – Hillary would have been SO much better” after calling her, her husband, and her supporters a bunch of racist gun and Bible toters who could barely get dressed in the morning. All I can say is, BITE ME.

Ahem. Sorry. I have no patience or tolerance for this crap right now. Clinton would have been the best, they knew it then, but sexism trumps all any day of the week, and they sure as hell were not going to support any old (!) woman over a biracial freshman senator. Nosirree bob. Even as I write that one sentence – a freshman senator beating out a woman who had a vastly superior resume was treated like crap by these people in her own party AND in the media. And now they come crying saying it should have been her? Please. They CHOSE him over her. (Photo credit: blackagendareport.com)

It is not like the information wasn’t out there for all the world to see. They chose to ignore it, they chose to cover it up (thank you, JournoListers and the LA Times to name just two more), they failed to vet, they failed to fact check, they failed to keep their emotions in check, they failed, failed, failed at their jobs, and now we are all paying the price. For instance, the NY Times, and other outlets, repeatedly have pushed the meme that Obama is even keeled, even tempered, and unshakeable. It is a pile of horse manure. They have just ignored his snippyness, arrogance, and short fuse because it did not fit the image they – the media – were crafting for him (no doubt at the insistance of the Davids, Plouffe and Axelrod).

The truth was out there, though. Consider the opening paragraphs of this story from a reporter who liked Obama, but was professional enough to be honest about him in his extensive piece, “Barack Obama And Me“:

It’s not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn’t yet hit local newsstands.

It’s the first time I ever heard him yell, and I’m trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

This is an extensive, in-depth piece, which goes into Emil Jones, Obama’s “kingmaker,” and so, so much more. But one other piece I cannot resist putting in since I have mentioned is his fake Southern accent (grrrrr):

My view of Obama then wasn’t all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it.

My point, and as Ellen Degeneres would say, I do have one, is that the information was there, from this author, to John Kass, Lynn Sweet, and others in the Chicago area, but the MSM refused to upset the apple cart, supporting the myth of Obama, not the fact of Obama. All I can say is, thanks shitloads for that, you worthless hacks. Look where your complete and utter lack of professionalism got us. Told you I have no patience for this right now.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop pushing Hillary NOW. The time is long past,t he damage done. She is not going to run. She has made that abundantly clear. Party before country, she will not go up against her boss, and even if she did, it is too late. She has already been touting his policies all over the globe. If she now claimed she didn’t support any of them, but hawked them anyway, well, do I really need to finish that thought for you? I didn’t think so.

So, yeah – I have had it with the handwringing, coulda, woulda, shoulda crapola the MSM, and some political pundits, are now peddling. They should have done their homework before the last election instead of crying about it now that the damage is done. They have no one to blame but themselves, and believe you me, they deserve all the blame they get.

Here’s a thought – maybe it isn’t just those in DC who deserve to be liberated from their political positions, but the vast majority of “journalists,” too. I am sure there are a whole bunch of real journalists out there looking for jobs. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change? Journalists who did the groundwork, did their HOMEwork, and didn’t insert their opinion into their stories? Oh, yes – now THAT is some “change” for which we can “hope.”

Until then, just spare me the current MSM/pundit outrage at what should have been. Clinton was the best choice, bar none, and you backed the wrong horse in that race for the most superficial of reasons. Admit that, acknowledge that, and for heaven’s sake, DO YOUR JOBS already. And stop pissing me off.

How about you?

Uh, yeah. That sounds about right.

Here’s something I don’t get. President Obama is trying to paint the Republicans as the ones who are trying to kick the can down the road. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t they just come to power THIS YEAR? Wasn’t it under Nancy Pelosi’s rule that they decided to not even make a budget because of the soaring debt?? Wasn’t it the Democrats solely in power for a while there, and over the entire Congress even before Obama’s ascension? So, how is this all the Republicans’ fault? That doesn’t make sense to me.

As reported in the Washington Post (and mentioned here), First Lady Betty Ford lamented the days gone by when Republicans and Democrats were friends, when, even if they didn’t see eye to eye, they were able to look past those differences.

Just this morning, I saw Governor John Kasich of Ohio, and he said much the same thing. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives back in the ’90′s. Gov. Kasich offered some advice to his former colleagues about how to deal with this whole budget/debt issue, and had something to say about civility near the end:

I think that sums it up nicely, on both fronts.

What I don’t get is, when did this polarization happen? WHY did it happen? How can we change it back to a more civil discourse, not just in Congress, but among us all? Is it just a lack of impulse control? Sense of entitlement that we can say or do whatever the hell we please? I just don’t get how our discourse has so deteriorated. Something’s gotta give. Maybe a national Miss Manners class is in order…

There’s something else I don’t get about how we treat one another. How is it, in the 21st century, we still have 2 million women battered by their partners each year, and 10 million children at risk because of domestic violence? How is it that we have not dealt with this issue, worked to change attitudes about women to the extent that their partner would never even DREAM of hitting them (or psychologically abuse them)? Or that, at least, these numbers would be greatly decreased?

I raise this because Dr. Phil, at the invitation of Senator Patrick Leahy, will be testifying on Capitol Hill today to request that an Act passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act, providing funds for prosecution, requiring restitution, and other issues, be re-authorized (which it was in 2000). Isn’t it sad that in this day and age, the following holds true:

[snip] # According to the U.S. Surgeon General, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States.
# The American Medical Association estimates that their male partners assault 2 million American women each year.
# The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 95% of the victims of domestic violence are women.
# A woman is beaten every 15 seconds in the United States. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report to the nation on Crime and Justice. The Data. Washington DC Office of Justice Program, US Dept. of Justice. Oct 1983)
# 35% of all emergency room calls are a result of domestic violence.
# Of those who abuse their partner, well over 65% also physically and/or sexually abuse the children.
# Each day …..4 women die as a result of abuse.
# Each day …..3 children die as a result of abuse.
# The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that 32% of female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 1999.2000)
# Anywhere from 1-3 million women are battered each year by their intimate partner. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence. Washington DC, 2000.)
# In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than by any other type of assailant. (ibid.) [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here’s the truly tragic aspect of the list above – that is less than a THIRD of all of the issues of violence facing women in this country. Holy shit.

And one more thing I don’t get. How is it that Quinnipiac Poll finds that Obama still holds 50% over Republican challengers? How can that possibly be? After the Stimulus that wasn’t anywhere close to one, the Obamacare Debacle that will cost us big time, Unemployment going up, housing values going down while foreclosures are going up, the number of golf trips of Obamas going up, along with the number of Executive Orders to circumvent that pesky Congress(about which we screamed bloody murder when Bush did it), and the number of lies he tells daily, including about his own mother’s insurance coverage while he was campaigning in 2008 (that one was a DOOZY – using his dying mother for political gain, and lying about it – wow, that speaks VOLUMES about the kind of person he is), and I could go on, and on, and on.

I just don’t get it. Do you?

I have a candidate or two I like, but I’m sure not in love yet.  I understand the enthusiasm some folks have for Sarah Palin, but if Hillary was too polarizing to win, Sarah is a lost cause already.  Sure, she can energize a crowd of supporters, but she can also fan the cold embers of Obama’s disillusioned followers into a raging fire of Progressive voter turnout like no other Republican.  If she runs, and that’s unknown at this writing, she probably won’t get the nomination for that very reason.  I suspect she knows this.  The opposition to her is just too damn strong.  It more than negates her vote-getting power.  Even if the Republican stalwarts turn out in droves to vote for her, the Obamites will turn out even more than they did in 2008.  But I must confess, just knowing how much they hate her makes me want her to head the Republican ticket!

So who else have they got?

Herman Cain?  Hmmm.  He’s interesting, but he does not have the credentials we need in a leader any more than Obama does, and I frankly hate the whole concept of putting forth a black candidate to take on a black incumbent just because he’s black.  It just irks me on the lack of merits.  After four years of the Race Card, I’m sick to death of it.  It should never have been an issue to start with.

And I think most of us could not be happier that Newt Gingrich self-destructed so early in the game.  Now, would somebody please tell him?

Tim Pawlenty.  Sorry, he bores me too much to bother…

Jon Huntsman is a dream candidate for many Centrists and ex-pat Democrats, so that would go a long way, it would seem, in bridging the political divide.  Unfortunately, he has taken a pacifistic approach, apparently trying to out-McCain McCain, suggesting that the election doesn’t have to be mean, low-down, and dirty.  I know Jesus admonished us to turn the other cheek, but you can bet the mortgage that the Obama camp won’t be pulling any punches.  And I don’t think he’s outspoken enough about what exactly he has to offer as President besides quiet diplomacy.  That was Obama’s schtick in 2008, and it was ridiculed then as it should be now.

I’ve heard it postulated that the Republican Party really does want to lose this election so they can run Jeb Bush in 2016.  If this is true, I hope the Mayan calendar is right.  The world should end in 2012 if that’s the case.  In fact, if Obama wins re-election, it probably will!

There is also a popular theory that the Republicans are prone to giving their old war-horses their “turn” at leading the party.  Like in 1996, it was Bob Dole’s turn.  In 2008, it was John McCain’s turn.  But I suspect that is only true when they expect to lose, or want to lose, and I strongly don’t believe they want to lose this time, nor do they have any reason to expect to lose.  Even if the polls showed Obama consistently beating a Republican rival, I’d be very suspicious of those polls for a variety of reasons.

In 2008, the election polls were very close between Obama and McCain until the financial crisis hit.  I heard from several sources that many people felt Obama and the Democrats were the better bet for dealing with the economic meltdown, that a change at the top was needed.  So, according to this theory, Independents swung to Obama and Republicans stayed home on Election Day.  If this is true, then Republicans should be very optimistic about unseating him if the economy stays like it is.

But for the Republicans to beat Obama, they have to not only get a good Republican turnout, they have to win over the Independents, and they have to hope the Democrats become as complacent as the Republicans were in 2008.  I know the conservatives want to put forward a truly conservative candidate for a number of reasons – to fire up their own kind, to offer a starkly contrasting political view, etc.. But truly conservative candidates rarely win over the Independent voters, and there are more of them now than there have been in recent memory, maybe more than ever in the USA.  So if the Republicans want to win over these Independent voters, they need a relatively Centrist candidate.  I really don’t think many Republican voters will be complacent and stay home this election like they did with McCain.  And if they want disillusioned Democrats to stay home on Election Day, they can’t risk having a staunch Conservative heading their ticket.

I believe in the truth of the old adage that “people vote their pocketbooks,” so that leads me to think the Republicans have a strong advantage in unseating Obama this election, since this economic mess shows no signs of healing itself.  I suspect that may be part of what is driving them to put Romney in front.  Economics is his strong suit.

While Conservatives may dislike him because of the Massachusetts healthcare issue, it does have a neutralizing effect on that controversy.  The Dems sure can’t throw it in his face if he doesn’t make it a campaign issue himself.  I know the Republicans made it a big deal that they were going to overturn that piece of legislation, but the reality is that’s not going to happen.  And as much as it irks Republicans, and even though the healthcare legislation was poorly written and poorly legislated, overturning an entitlement like that is a losing proposition.  It needs to be modified, of course, but I’m afraid it’s going to remain.  I really don’t see a political advantage for the Republicans to run on that hot-potato issue.

So all things considered, as it stands now, it looks like Romney is the guy to beat.  The question remains, can he beat Obama.  Most pundits seem to think the GOP needs a stronger candidate, and I agree.  But I can definitely see why Romney is the front-runner so far.

On the other hand, it reminds me of where Hillary was positioned four years ago.

Mitt best be looking over his shoulder.

[snip] AGAINST her, that is. Yep, it turns out there was some news hidden in those thousands of Palin e-mails after all. But the American media couldn’t use it against her, which is why you have to go to the British press to learn about it. The Daily Telegraph reports: “The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin’s emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race. One message sent by someone in Juneau, Alaska on Sept 17, 2008 said the governor should be ’shot from one of the planes that shoot the very wolves that you ordered.’ Five days earlier an email landed in her in-box saying she ‘must be killed.’ It said: ‘She doesn’t belong to the NRA to support the right of each citizen to have weapons in an aim of self-defense, but just to support the right of every southern white citizen to shoot all non-white people legally! Sarah Palin MUST BE KILLED!’ Another emailed death threat in the same month, while Mrs Palin was on the campaign trail as John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, came from Antwerp, Belgium. It said Mrs Palin should be shot and that ‘only on that moment justice will be accomplished.’” If you think Sarah Palin deserved that, you might be a liberal. Or, at the risk of redundancy, an American journalist.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy crap. Now, I am not (that) naive, I know many leaders receive death threats, but the vitriol directed at the VP candidate, was rather shocking.

Just as it is shocking that there are very few news sources in the United States that covered this, as Jim Treacher highlighted. After doing my own search, I saw two: ABC News, which mentioned the death threats briefly, though it did highlight what a voracious reader of news Palin was (that that, Katie Couric); and Fox News, which used an AP report, also mentioning the death threats in passing (very brief statement).

Across the pond, as noted above, the Daily Telegraph (UK) has been reviewing Palin’s emails (again, a bit of a witch hunt since no other politician I can remember has had to endure this level of intrusion). The title, and subheading are telling, indeed, “Sarah Palin Emails: Enemies Sent A Series Of Death Threats; The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin’s emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race.”

I continue to be amazed at all this woman has endured, and with such incredible strength, determination, and even good humor. What also amazes me is how she is depicted compared to , oh, I dunno, the Petulant Commander in Chief, who somehow got the title of being “even-keeled,” at least that’s what the NY Times said about him. It is remarkable since he seems to get so testy when someone actually asks him a question. And while Obama claimed families were off-limits, that sure never stopped the media, and liberal bloggers, from going after Palin’s then and now.

All things considered, though, I think this witch hunt by the media has backfired tremendously. While the MSM might be a little (too) quiet on some of the more dangerous and heinous emails Palin has received, and what she has endured, they have had to acknowledge that she was engaged, smart, not a “prima donna,” and more. I’d say the last laugh is on them.

Now, if they could please get back to doing some real journalism, perhaps investigate Obama 1/100th as much as they have Palin, or heck, even Anthony Weiner to see if he broke any laws with which he can be charged? The MSM failed mightily with Obama in 2008, allowing him to get away with all kinds of secrets and lies. They have the opportunity for a do-ver in 2012. You know, like doing some real journalism instead of this assault on one woman whose only crime as far as I can tell is being a strong, accomplished woman, and who isn’t even in the running (yet). Just saying…

Naturally, Obama’s Administration has continued the trend of Obama the Candidate. It has taken a major step back in that whole transparency thing, according to the AP. Even when he wins awards for being transparent, he has to do so in a closed ceremony – how much more hypocritical can one be?

Well, there is one bit of transparency that is now coming forth about Obama. And that is how he pays off his big campaign donors. Of course, it is not unusual for a president to give a plum position to a big contributor, but Obama has done so for about 200 – that is two hundred – of his supporters in government positions in just two years. By comparison, George W. Bush hired about 200 contributors over EIGHT years. Uh, yeah.

So much for that “change” in Washington from “special interests,” huh? I know, I know, I am not surprised, either, but I didn’t drink the Kool Aide and vote for the man who made this claim:

[snip] As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests. Kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” who had “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

“We’re here today to take it back,” he said.[snip]

Ahahahahaha – I know, I know, it is hilarious. Or it would be if so many people hadn’t bought this total BS.

And in direct contradiction to what the candidate said, here are some particulars of Obama the president’s sycophants:

Telecom executive Donald H. Gips raised a big bundle of cash to help finance his friend Barack Obama’s run for the presidency.

Gips, a vice president of Colorado-based Level 3 Communications, delivered more than $500,000 in contributions for the Obama war chest, while two other company executives collected at least $150,000 more.

After the election, Gips was put in charge of hiring in the Obama White House, helping to place loyalists and fundraisers in many key positions. Then, in mid-2009, Obama named him ambassador to South Africa. Meanwhile, Level 3 Communications, in which Gips retained stock, received millions of dollars of government stimulus contracts for broadband projects in six states — though Gips said he had been “completely unaware” that the company had received the contracts.

[...]

• Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised $500,000.

• The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.

• Some Obama bundlers have ties to companies that stand to gain financially from the president’s policy agenda, particularly in clean energy and telecommunications, and some already have done so. Level 3 Communications, for instance, snared $13.8 million in stimulus money.[snip]

The last one is particularly troublesome to me. I thought the nation generally frowned upon companies having inside tracks to getting our hard earned, tax paying dollars. I dunno about you, but for Level 3 to get that kind of cold, hard cash from the stimulus sounds like payback to me. (You know, the $3 Trillion stimulus that Obama thought was a joking matter the other day? When he flippantly, arrogantly, joked there weren’t as many shovel ready jobs as they thought, that one? What a piece of work. It is not a laughing matter to most of us, President Obama.)

Oh, but wait – there is more:

[snip] The appointment of George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton illustrates how the administration has rewarded many top fundraisers.

Overton wrote in 2003 that the influence big donors wield in elections means that an “overwhelming majority of citizens are effectively excluded from an important stage of the political process.” Yet Overton bundled at least $500,000 for Obama. He was named to the Obama transition team and in February 2009 was appointed principal deputy attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy. Overton visited the White House more than 80 times from January 2009 through the end of 2010 for events ranging from small meetings with high-level staffers to social and entertainment events, sometimes with his wife, records show. Overton resigned the $180,000-a-year job in July 2010. He declined to comment for this story.

Overton is one of seven campaign bundlers who took jobs at Justice, including Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a $50,000 bundler. Holder had been deputy attorney general in the administration of President Bill Clinton. [snip]

Just to be clear, here is the problem with “bundling” contributions:

[snip] Bundling is controversial because it permits campaigns to skirt individual contribution limits of $2,500 in federal elections. Bundlers pool donations from fundraising networks and, as a result, “play an enormous role in determining the success of political campaigns,” according to government watchdog Public Citizen. [snip]

Yes, that would be a bit of a problem. And it also helps explain how someone who has made such a mess of the DOJ got his position. Of course, I am referring to Eric Holder, who has been just a disaster in upholding federal law (the examples are too numerous to mention here, but the dismissal of the clear cut voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers case is the tip of the iceberg).

There is so much more to this story I cannot possibly recount it all here, so I urge you to read it all. It goes into more detail about those who got these positions, but I have to leave you with one more example:

[snip] In March 2009, Obama appointed $500,000 bundler and law school pal Julius Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency. Two other bundlers at the FCC are chief of staff Edward Lazarus, a litigator and former federal prosecutor, and William T. Lake, a lawyer specializing in communications and e-commerce issues who serves as chief of the media bureau.

Genachowski had previously served as chief counsel to the FCC chairman in the 1990s, but his close ties to Obama have raised eyebrows. He has turned up so often at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. that in March, congressional Republicans demanded an accounting of whom he has met with and what was discussed. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You know someone is spending a lot of time at the White House when US Representatives are demanding to know just what the hell they are doing there all of the time.

Ah, yes – the only thing transparent about Obama is how much “change” he is getting from his bundlers. I mean, members of his Administration. Heaven knows, they siphoned a whole boatload of it into his coffers. He is returning the favor with OUR change.

That is the kind of change I can do without.

Bear in mind, first and foremost, that the Obamacare program, voted into law SOLELY by Democrats, contains MASSIVE cuts to Medicare. Doctors are now limiting Medicare patients as a result. But that doesn’t stop the Democrats from railing at Ryan’s plan, acting as if he is going to unplug machines or something.

Don’t take it from me, though. FactCheck.org, a division of the Annenberg Foundation, just came out with an article highlighting the new DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s lies about this very program.

But first, astute readers may recall that the Annenberg Challenge is where Barack Obama and his good buddy, domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, served on the board together. This is no conservative organization coming out with this information, but one with a liberal past.

So, what did the DNC Chair say exactly? This, according to the FactCheck article, “DNC Chair Throws Truth To The Wolves,” the headline of which says it all:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz falsely claimed that seniors with preexisting medical conditions would be denied Medicare coverage under the GOP’s plan. The House GOP plan specifically says insurance companies “must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries.”

She also repeated a false Democratic talking point that future beneficiaries — those who are now younger than 55 — would be left on their own to buy insurance in the private market. The GOP plan, as we have written before, would provide subsidies for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Wasserman Schultz, the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, made her comments May 29 on “Face the Nation.”

Wasserman Schultz, May 29: What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, “You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the — in the health care insurance market. We’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions. We’re going to give you ‘x’ amount of dollars and you figure it out.”

She is simply wrong to say that the GOP plan would allow insurance companies to “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions.” [snip]

Not that you would know it from the attacks from Obama and his minions, but the Ryan Plan is not as Draconian as they want people to think. They are just blowing smoke to make sure no one pays attention to the cuts THEY made, which are affecting people on Medicare. But hey, why let the truth stand in your way? The Dems aren’t, that’s for sure:

The Republican plan — dubbed “Path to Prosperity” by its chief architect, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — would make no changes in Medicare for those 55 and older. But it would make significant changes to Medicare for those younger than 55 — just not as described by the Florida Democrat. The plan would provide future beneficiaries with government subsidies to purchase health insurance through a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

Path to Prosperity: Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.
DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said “we stand by the statement” that the GOP plan would deny coverage to future beneficiaries with preexisting conditions. (Emphasis mine.) Sevugan provided excerpts of testimony given April 5 by Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian CATO Institute, at a hearing of a House oversight subcommittee. But in that testimony, Cannon said that “all seniors under the chairman’s proposal, as I understand it, will be able to obtain health insurance coverage.” And those with preexisting conditions “will get larger vouchers” because payments will be “risk-adjusted so that people with severe illnesses will get larger vouchers.”

Sevugan made the point that the government subsidies — or “vouchers,” as Cannon calls them — won’t keep up with insurance premiums and, as a result, seniors would be forced to go without coverage. But that’s not what the DNC chairwoman said. She said the GOP plan would allow private insurers to “drop you for preexisting conditions,” and that’s just not true. [snip]

Lies, lies, and more lies. But what I love is that the DNC spokesman, in the face of facts to the contrary, claims that they “stand by their statements.” They are misrepresenting a plan to the American people to cast Ryan’s plan in as negative a light as possible, even if what they say is not true. Wow. That takes some chutzpah. Or complete and utter lack of ethics. You decide.

The conclusion of this article (and there is more to it, so I urge you to click here to read the rest), is this:

[snip ]It’s fair game to debate whether the subsidies are adequate to cover insurance costs. But it’s wrong to say that the GOP plan would “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage.”

When FactCheck.org is telling you you’re lying, and you keep doing it, that is disingenuous at best, and deplorable at worst. They are simply trying to gin up votes, and just like 2008, they don’t care how much they lie to do it.

Of course, Rep. Wasserman Schultz is just following Obama’s lead. He is the one who started this BS back in April, lying through his teeth, as FactCheck.org made clear. I think Rep. Paul Ryan is a bit over it, this Hill article makes clear from the meeting between Republicans and Obama on Wednesday,
“Ryan to Obama: ‘Leadership Should Come From The Top‘”. Why, yes, it should, Rep. Ryan. Yes, leadership should come from the top. But Obama isn’t a leader, he is a liar, which he has demonstrated time and time again. Why would you expect anything less than that from him, or his hand picked DNC chair?

Ahem. To his credit, Ryan stood firm:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) confronted President Obama over his attack on the Republican budget plan in the most dramatic moment of a White House meeting with the House GOP conference.

Saying he wanted to “clear the air” amid a deficit debate marred by partisan rancor, Ryan, the author of the House GOP budget, told the president he was wrong to characterize Republicans as turning their backs on children and senior citizens.

“Leadership should come from the top,” Ryan said to Obama, according to Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who described the exchange to The Hill.

Ryan also called out the president for his speech at George Washington University in April, where Obama castigated the Republican budget in harsh terms while Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, sat just a few feet away.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes – Obama the picture of decorum and good manners. Not.

Both Rep. Ryan and FactCheck.org have tried to set the record straight about Ryan’s Budget plan. The Democrats will have none of it. Better to stick with the lie than the truth, especially if it will score a bunch of points, right? They are intentionally manipulating people, scaring some, and pissing off others as a result of their continued false meme. That is reprehensible.

You know, I still cannot believe that this is how the DNC has always operated, and I was just too blind to see it. But if the past 3 years is any indication, that is exactly what they were doing, I am ashamed to admit. Is it really so hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together on the behalf of ALL AMERICANS? To not worry about who gets the most points for it? Is it really so hard to put the country first, and our worsening economic situation, over partisan sides?

Evidently. And that just makes me mad. How about you?