From 1976 until 2008, every major-party presidential candidate took public money for the general election, adhering to spending limits that significantly reduced the influence of money on American elections. Candidates began dropping out of public financing for primaries in 2000, and then in 2008, Barack Obama abandoned the system entirely, preferring to raise more money from small donations, and promising to fix the public program. He has made almost no attempt to fulfill that promise.

Even in its criticism of the President, the NY Times still seeks to defend a favored son. In 2008, then-Senator Obama may have raised substantial amounts of cash from small donations, yet the Times fails to mention Mr. Obama also received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate. Senator Obama abandoned the public financing system despite signing a pledge to do the opposite. His opponent, Senator John McCain (himself a co-author of election finance reform with Senator Feingold), upheld his promise to use only public financing. For his trouble, he was drowned in an avalanche of dough and outspent eight to one.

No attempt to revive the public financing system has been made that I can see, and as the editorial points out, this is the first time in forty years neither candidate plans to use it. Both Romney and Obama have eschewed public financing in favor of rich donors and the punch of SuperPACs:

Public financing could still be resuscitated, but first, someone in power has to care about it. The Republican-led House has voted to kill the system outright. A few House Democrats have proposed a good bill to fix it, but no one in the Senate has picked up the bill. And the two major candidates are too busy grubbing for the unlimited donations that now dominate politics.

The era of “super PACs” and secret donors has made public financing more urgent.

The editorial offers ideas for raising grants of public financing to make the system more appetizing to candidates, but their suggestions weigh in at a maximum of $300 million. That doesn’t seem to be an amount that will do the trick — particularly when President Obama’s team already spent $750 million the first time out and months ago boasted about the possibility of raising $1 billion in 2012.

That such vast sums would be spent by each side to drown the other in negative ads when so many citizens are in need is grotesque. What hope do we as average taxpayers have when our voices are dwarfed by big money interests? We, as usual, will be left out in the cold. The Times also complains that we need the candidates to have time to “campaign more instead of begging among the rich.” But the greater evil is that both Presidential candidates offer vague platitudes rather than concrete platform. How about less campaigning and more doing? How about less campaigning and more outreach, more listening to voters on the ground…

Too many Americans have lost jobs to listen either to just “stay the course” or “we can do better.” In President Obama’s case, his latest among many promises to “pivot to jobs” rings hollow. The recent drop in unemployment to 8.1% is cold comfort when another several hundred thousand have simply dropped out of the work force.

Numbers don’t hold much sway. Looking at the people around me who are losing their jobs, and lost their homes, I see the number of short sales and foreclosures in my immediate vicinity in the last two years that have helped destroy my property values. I have too many close friends, accomplished professionals all, whose jobs have just been outsourced or cut, to believe the rosy numbers.

And if Mr. Romney plans on gaining traction, he had better be willing to step on the third rail in an effective way, and stop pandering to wedge issues or complaining about President Obama’s lack of leadership or fiscal know-how. All of this is meaningless. Just cutting taxes isn’t going to cut it.

To both gentlemen…give me the laundry list…What are you going to do? How are you going to get there? How are you going to pay for it.

Until the American people stand up and demand that we get big money out of politics on both sides, the rest of this is just tilting at windmills. Both political parties are “the one percent.” We had better figure that out.
*************
Anita Finlay is the author of DIRTY WORDS ON CLEAN SKIN: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary Supporter’s Rude Awakening, now available at Amazon in Print and on Kindle. Please visit her website www.anitafinlay.com.

In an election year, we will surely hear a great deal of pandering from both political parties. Since the 2010 midterms revealed a surprising drop-off in the numbers of women who voted for Democrats, the current pandering is aimed squarely at the hearts and minds of women. Will it work? If I’d learned anything in 2008, it is that women have an endless capacity to settle for crumbs rather than standing up to claim the cake. Dirty Words on Clean Skins asks us all to be more involved in the debate.

Please visit my website at anitafinlay.com to learn more. Dirty Words On Clean Skin is now available on Amazon. It is also available at Amazon’s Kindle Store as of today!

Thank you, as always, for your kind support of my work.

Those like Matt Taibbi, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Jack Cafferty, David Schuster, Dana Milbank, Chris Cilizza, to name a few, have long enjoyed deep cover because of their supposed stance on social issues. That does not nor never should have bought them a pass. These men purport to be journalists and serious commentators. Never was their vile behavior more evident than the sexist horror show of 2008 against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Their vile, sniggering behavior continues unabated. In fact the only half-hearted apologies ever elicited from any one of these men has only come after a hand slap, a loss of ratings or advertisers…Is that the level of political discourse in this country when discussing women: She devil, bitch, Nurse Ratched, bubblehead?

Rush was forced into the same kind of apology last week. Was he sincere? Doubtful. Will he do it again? Very Likely. Has Bill Maher ever apologized for his endless litany of demeaning statements about women?

Rush Limbaugh is entitled to like or dislike whomever he wants, but if the best way he has to discredit Hillary Clinton is by saying she has “a testicle lockbox” or by calling her a “Femi-Nazi” – I’d say he’s lost the argument. And if Bill Maher likewise has to insult Hillary by saying “They fined CBS a million dollars for showing Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c*nt,” and calls Sarah Palin a “c*nt” and a “twat” – it is pretty obvious that the cheap shot is all he is good for. It doesn’t say much for his mental capacity otherwise.

Bill Maher just made a million dollar donation to a SuperPAC with the mission of re-electing President Obama. How does that sit with the party of women’s progress? So we don’t care if you treat women like garbage – as long as your check cashes?

Limbaugh and Maher are shock jocks. That’s how they make their money. However, they also both function as commentators on different news programs. But whether they do or not, these two, along with David Letterman and Jay Leno, have powerful bully pulpits. They cannot hide behind the safety net of “comedian” or “host” when what they are selling is hate-speech. Their jokes, satire, rants, whatever you call them, have a devastating effect night after night that is just as costly as that of the vile pundits on MSNBC or CNN.

Just imagine the equivalent comment being made by any one of these guys toward President Obama? What is the equivalent comment to calling a man a slut, a whore, a c*nt, a twat, a moron, a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick, saying that a particular woman “reads copy with a big set of hairy balls in her mouth” (that was from Taibbi)…What if you made a slur against a Jewish person? A Muslim? Juan Williams made a general comment voicing his nervousness about Muslims traveling in traditional garb on airplanes and NPR fired him.

I have no objection to anyone taking a female candidate or a woman making statements in the public sphere to task on the merits. But let’s stick to the issues, shall we?

Why is it necessary for these men (or the complicit women who egg them on) to call women by the most denigrating names possible – as if their very gender was at the root of their crime.

Moral relativism is not acceptable. The source of these comments does not matter, nor the target. This is hate speech, not free speech. If it were not hate speech, what else accounts for all the violence against women in this country and around the world? Clearly, there still exists some sort of sick need to put women in their place, either with words or by violent means. My fear is that men who control the air waves or use ink by the barrel influence society in negative ways when it comes to how we view women. They decide what a woman is worth and influence how they should be treated by speaking of them so disrespectfully.

If the Rush Limbaughs and Bill Mahers and Keith Olbermanns of the world cannot find a more intelligent way to take issue with a female subject than resorting to acting like bullying twelve year olds, then maybe they are not up to the job.

We are so busy in this country protecting every group under the sun from offense. Yet women are still graded and degraded on the basis of appearance, age, sexuality, vocal quality – anything that will allow them to be cleaved into body parts and then disempowered. It is up to women on both sides of the aisle to stop themselves from being used and manipulated in this debate and express a zero tolerance policy. It is up to men on both sides of the aisle to stop grading on a curve when it comes to their own transgressions or those of their brothers.

While it was only fitting that Rush Limbaugh apologize for his behavior, he should not be singled out or used politically as a distraction from the larger debate. If politicians are only coming to the defense of women when they need our votes, it is up to us to say ‘you can do better.’

President Obama called Ms. Fluke to express his support. But if he really wants to support her – then he must return Bill Maher’s million dollar donation to his re-election campaign, since Maher, like Limbaugh is a horrid culprit in this debate and a regular purveyor of sexist attacks upon women of both parties.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama have two beautiful daughters. I know they would never want Sasha and Malia to be on the receiving end of the sexist commentary made by the likes of a Limbaugh or a Maher. Given that a newscaster by the name of David Shuster referred to the Clintons as pimps and their daughter Chelsea a whore by inference, nothing is outside the realm of possibility any longer. Propriety is a thing of the past. No insult to any woman is off limits it seems.

The President has the most powerful bully pulpit in the world. Rejecting Mr. Maher’s money would go a long way toward proving that this zero tolerance policy starts at the top, and is not just about politics.

****************
Anita Finlay is the author of the soon to be released book, Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary supporter’s rude awakening.

In the name of defeating a president who is clearly bad for our economy, who champions crony capitalism and continues, even escalates, some of the worst of George W. Bush’s policies, disaffected Democrats are willing to vote for a Republican – but not anyone.

Ex-Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who seems to think that God ordained him keeper of the flame on social issues, took on a group of hostile (Republican) college students at a Concord, New Hampshire campaign stop. Santorum, stepping up his campaign after a surprising second place photo finish at the Iowa caucus this week, was “jeered after comparing gay marriage to polygamy.” James Oliphant of the L.A. Times reports:

Those skeptical of whether Rick Santorum has what it takes to win a general-election contest this fall have focused on, among other things, his drumbeating on social issues in a year when Republican strategists believe hitting President Obama on the economy is the way to win the White House.

Santorum’s potential vulnerability on that score was on display Thursday night in New Hampshire, where he was challenged on his views on gay marriage.

Santorum is an ardent, outspoken opponent of gay marriage, favoring an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. He received a rough welcome from a group of college Republicans in Concord — and it likely didn’t help matters when he compared a same-sex union to polygamy.

Here is the money quote:

“Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else?” Santorum asked, according to a video by NBC News. “So anybody can marry several people?”…

Confronted by one critic, he fired back, “What about three men?”

“If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?”

So if you are gay, you automatically want to have an orgy? And make a mockery of Santorum’s life choices? Or was the “polygamy” dig some wacky and obtuse backdoor reference to Romney’s Mormonism?

Okay, Mr. Santorum, let me explain this to you – just in case you have never met any gay people. My husband and I have gay friends who are in a committed monogamous relationship. They have been together for thirty years. Did you get that? THIRTY. That is more than the majority of straight couples. They own a home, they work, they pay their taxes. You know, just like regular people. They are human beings just like you. Not wildebeests, you offensive boob. We have lesbian friends who likewise are in a committed, monogamous relationship and have been together for fifteen years. Why are they not entitled to the same security and rights as any other married couple?

Even former VP Dick Cheney has come out and said that gay couples deserve to have the same opportunity as everybody else when it comes to marital rights.

While I imagine any Republican candidate is going to attempt to establish their conservative credentials on this issue, Santorum takes this way too far with this ridiculing jab. Does Mr. Santorum really think that every gay man wants to go to church and march down the aisle in a dress? Or be “married” to several men at once? Whether it is called marriage or civil union, we are all equal and everyone should be afforded equal rights. A church is a private institution and if they don’t want to let you get married there, they will say no. My husband and I were not allowed to get married in a particular church because we were not parishioners there. The man and woman thing did not help us.

We attended a beautiful civil commitment ceremony earlier this year and rejoiced in the happiness of the two grooms. Marriage, as Mr. Santorum is quick to point out, promotes stability. Guess what. Gay marriage promotes stability, too. Is someone else’s joy or security that threatening to him? Did anyone stand in the way of Mr. Santorum and his wife’s happiness? Or their rights to raise a family as they have chosen to do?

It is interesting that a mini-firestorm was ignited the other day when liberal commentators Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson both called Santorum out for his “weirdness” when, years ago, he and his wife lost a baby and brought the child home to their family as part of the grieving process – to make the child real to their family and get closure for his unfortunate death. These two “journalists” (lamely) apologized to Mr. Santorum and his family for their odious comments. One could argue (and several bloggers have), that Colmes and Robinson were on a mission to repel the electorate and classify Santorum as outside the mainstream by reintroducing this story.

Far from being “weird,” it has since been reported that grief counselors tell parents in this situation that this is a viable way to handle this tragedy for the health of the family. Yet, as Mr. Santorum acknowledged, he received a great deal of criticism for that decision when this most unfortunate event happened. While I think it is abhorrent for anyone to go after the family (or private choices of the family) of a candidate, it is interesting that Santorum expected compassion for his family’s choice, but seems incapable of offering any to the gay community, if they do not want to live their lives as he deems fit, or as his particular religious practice dictates.

In this election year, we are faced with many dire decisions and problems to solve. Many young people, growing up in an environment where homosexuality is accepted, are far more concerned with jobs than they are with discriminating against their classmates.

The National Review’s Robert Costa also reported on Santorum’s exchange re gay marriage:

“Every child in America deserves to know and be loved by their mother and father,” [Santorum] told them. “When we deny children that birthright, we are harming children, we are harming society.” It didn’t go over well with the questioners, who booed him.

It is not always possible to have the family unit that Mr. Santorum demands and it is far preferable to know true parental love, whether those parents are a gay or straight couple, or to have the love and dedication of a single parent, than not to know it at all. Love and guidance will always have a positive effect on a child. Our high divorce rate in this country makes clear that the traditional family unit does not guarantee happiness. It is false for Mr. Santorum to intimate, as he has on many occasions, that only children raised by a “traditional” family have any possiblity of a well adjusted life. Society is harmed when a child is ignored, abused or treated cruelly — and that abuse happens and has happened in plenty of “traditional” families. Cookie cutter rules do not apply.

If Republicans think they are going to make headway with moderates in the electorate preaching fire and brimstone, showing contempt for a woman’s right to choose or gays having the same rights as everyone else – they are in for a rude awakening.

If Republicans want to be the party of small government, then they should get the hell out of our bedrooms. And if Democrats want to be truly “progressive,” they should acknowledge that adults are capable of making their own educated decisions without mommy and daddy telling them what to eat, how cold to keep their house, what kind of car to drive or what kind of light bulbs to use. I am all for energy efficiency but when you tell me to use a light bulb that has mercury in it — you’ve lost the thread.

Just make sure when you are elected, the only regulations you put in place ensure that the stuff we buy is cost efficient and works – and don’t subsidize financial institutions that function as a giant Ponzi scheme bilking the rest of us without repercussion. And while you’re at it — and this goes for both parties — get your damned noses out of the trough.

We’ll do the rest, thanks.

Santorum, and others, would do well to forget the preaching and pandering and remember what, and who, this election is a referendum on…

This is historic, and if anyone thinks for a second it isn’t, then they are simply fooling themselves. All of those people who screamed about indefinite detention of enemy combatants down at Gitmo, I sure as hell hope you are going to be screaming now. This is not just for those possible terrorists, this is for you, and me.

Now, I am no attorney, or Constitutional scholar, but I can read. The US Constitution, Amendment 6 says this: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

What is not clear about this?

I might add, I said from the very beginning that this alleged “Constitutional Scholar” probably became one so he could better dismantle the law. Sure is looking like it with this.

Glenn Greenwald’s article on this topic is outstanding, and I highly recommend you read the entire piece, but I do want to touch on some highlights here:

[snip] (Y)esterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote aboutthe primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Both groups pointed out that this is the first time indefinite detention has been enshrined in law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when — as the ACLU put it — “President Truman had the courage to veto” the Internal Security Act of 1950 on the ground that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights” and then watched Congress override the veto. That Act authorized the imprisonment of Communists and other “subversives” without the necessity of full trials or due process (many of the most egregious provisions of that bill were repealed by the 1971 Non-Detention Act, and are now being rejuvenated by these War on Terror policies of indefinite detention). President Obama, needless to say, is not Harry Truman. He’s not even the Candidate Obama of 2008 who repeatedly insisted that due process and security were not mutually exclusive and who condemned indefinite detention as “black hole” injustice.

A return to McCarthyism under the Obama Administration is what we now have. Wow, great. That is just jake. For all of those people who did not believe us when we said Obama was Bush III, something about which I wrote extensively, who ridiculed, attacked, and demeaned, not only were we right, and bite me, but NOW look what has happened to our nation.

As I said, there is so much more to this article, I cannot begin to do it justice here, read it. But I do want to make sure you see this:

[snip] I need to say that again: long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. (Emphasis mine.)That’s what makes the apologias over Obama and GITMO so misleading: the controversy over Guantanamo was not that about its locale — that it was based in the Caribbean Sea — so that simply closing it and then re-locating it to a different venue would address the problem. The controversy over Guantanamo was that it was a prison camp where people were put in cages indefinitely, for decades or life, without being charged with any crime. And that policy is one that President Obama whole-heartedly embraced from the start. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

If you prefer, you can watch Mr. Greenwald discuss this issue with Cenk Ungar here:

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is historic, this is horrible, this is McCarthyism, this is an affront to the US Constitution, this is abhorrent in every way, shape, and form.

I have just one question for those who voted for Obama: How do you like him NOW??

For some time, we have been hearing about the housing market, and how things were going in that department, critical to our overall health. Well, as it turns out, the National Realtors Association can’t count. They were off, way off, on where the numbers actually are, and their mistake was not a good one as this Chicago Tribune article highlights:

[snip] Far fewer homes have been sold over the past five years than previously estimated, the National Association of Realtors said Tuesday.

NAR said it plans to downwardly revise sales of previously-owned homes going back to 2007 during the release of its next existing home sales report on Dec. 21.

NAR’s existing home sales numbers, released monthly, are a closely followed gauge of the health of the housing market.

While NAR hasn’t revealed exactly how big the revision to home sales will be, the agency’s chief economist Lawrence Yun said the decrease will be “meaningful.“

“For the real estate business, this means the housing market’s downturn was deeper than what was initially thought,“ Yun said.

Yun said the database NAR uses to track existing home sales, the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), has led the real estate agency to over-count existing home sales for several reasons. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, crap. That is some pretty sucky news, isn’t it? This had been one of the upward trends lauded of late, and turns out, that was a big bunch of hooey.

And I have to share one more story of Obama helping out his buddies with our money (H/t FlBreeze), as this editorial from Investor.com highlights:

[snip] Now we find the Navy partnering with the Agriculture Department to purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of alternative biofuel in place of standard JP-5 fuel for Navy aircraft — the biggest federal purchase of biofuel ever.

It’s part of the White House’s “we can’t wait for Congress” strategy as the 2012 election year looms. But JP-5 typically costs less than $4 a gallon. If a family on a budget started filling up with $16-a-gallon gas, it might want to adopt the motto, “we can’t wait to go broke.”

[...]

As J.E. Dyer noted over the weekend on the Hot Air Green Room, “a member of Obama’s presidential transition team, T. J. Glauthier, is a ‘strategic advisor’ at Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy. Glauthier worked — shock, shock — on the energy-sector portion of the 2009 stimulus bill.”

Solazyme had already gotten a nearly $22 million chunk of change out of the taxpayers thanks to the 2009 stimulus. We heard the ludicrous excuse last week from Obama Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, as quoted in the National Journal, that “we are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters” because “our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.”(Click here to read the rest.)

What the hell are these people drinking? Whatever it is, they need to put it down, and walk away. This is just ridiculous, and absurd. I swear, Obama is finding all kinds of ways to funnel our money to his buddies, and I am sick of it.

Again, I have to ask – where the hell is the MSM on this?? How many scandals can Obama possibly have before they start reporting them? Unbelievable.

But this one, Lightsquared, isn’t just costly in terms of financial capital, and it is. But in terms of a deeper level, people’s integrity, and the integrity of the nation.

In case you don’t know what Lightsquared is, or need a refresher, this article from Bloomberg News provides a good overview, as well as detailing what happened with them recently,Falcone’s LightSquared Said to Disrupt 75% of GPS in Tests. Well, as you can tell from the headline, things didn’t go quite as planned:

Philip Falcone’s proposed LightSquared Inc. wireless service caused interference to 75 percent of global-positioning system receivers examined in a U.S. government test, according to a draft summary of results.

The results from testing conducted Oct. 31 to Nov. 4 show that “millions of fielded GPS units are not compatible” with the planned nationwide wholesale service, according to the draft seen by Bloomberg News.

“LightSquared signals caused harmful interference to majority of GPS receivers tested,” according to the draft prepared for a meeting next week of U.S. officials reviewing the LightSquared proposal. “No additional testing is required to confirm harmful interference exists.”

LightSquared, backed by $3 billion from Falcone’s Harbinger Capital Partners hedge fund, faces challenges from makers of global-positioning system devices who say the service will disrupt navigation by cars, boats, tractors and planes. U.S. regulators are withholding approval as they check on claims of interference.

You might be saying to yourself, “Okay, so? What’s the big deal with this?” Well, Ed Morrissey from Hot Airsums it up beautifully:

[snip] If that was all there was to this story, then this would just be another commercial venture that struck out, with little interest outside the tech fields involved. However, the overwhelming failure of LightSquared’s test puts allegations from last summer in a new light. In September, four-star Air Force General William Shelton accused the White House of pressuring him in August to change his Congressional testimony to make his assessment of LightSquared more favorable. Another Congressional witness told Eli Lake that the White House had “offered guidance” on how to testify favorably towards LightSquared.

Why is this important? Philip Falcone is a big donor to the Democratic Party, and he has billions of dollars at stake in LightSquared’s approval. Also, Obama himself was an investor in LightSquared at one point, as were or are a number of his associates. The resounding failure in this test makes it look like the White House pressured witnesses to back off of exposing LightSquared’s product as exactly the kind of dangerous problem that critics had maintained all along — with the intent to mislead Congress into moving forward with LightSquared’s government contracts.

One amusing note: LightSquared announced two days ago that the same tests showed no problems at all. After Bloomberg reported on the draft report, the company expressed outrage over the “leak” of “preliminary results.” Yeah, we’re with you on the leak outrage, pal. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yeah. So, just to recap, Falcone is a big huge contributor to the DNC, the White House pressured a 4 star general to make his testimony beneficial to that contributor even though there were huge concerns over how this would affect the military, rightly so, as it turns out. This kind of coercion from the highest office in the land is not just unseemly, it is unethical, immoral, and I suspect, illegal (though I am no attorney). This company is being pushed by Obama and his minions, consequences be damned.

Or as I like to call it, just another day in the Obama Administration. Ahem.

But try and find this information anywhere else in the mainstream, and you will be hard pressed to do so. This company could well affect millions of Americans, not to mention our military, but outside of Business Week and Hot Air, you won’t find it, certainly not by the MSM. That is pathetic. Just more covering up for Obama as each scandal comes out. Pathetic. And reprehensible.

Those scandals are continuing to pile up, though. No matter how much Obama wants to blame everything on the Republicans, these scandals are solely of his making. It is high time he was held to account, if not now, than next November. That’s what I think. What do you think?

Here’s a story that made our headlines. The NAACP is pretty upset about voter registration laws, and has decided that taking their complaint to the UN is the way to go. Okaaayy…

This is one of my favorite headlines of the day, and it says it all, “Rep. Sandy Adams: Holder Either ‘Incompetent’ Or ‘Not Being Truthful,’ Should Step Down..” Yep – I would agree with that assessment. He is either a big liar, or he is not fit to have the position – take your pick.

Here’s an interesting one. It has to do with Justice Kagan, and the Obamacare ruling that is upcoming by the Supremes. Looks like maybe Kagan really should recuse herself, ” Internal DOJ Email: Kagan Was Brought Into Loop on Mark Levin’s Obamacare Complaint’:

Internal Justice Department email communications made just days before the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act show that then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was brought into the loop as DOJ began preparing to respond to an anticipated legal complaint that Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation were planning to file against the act if the House used a procedural rule to “deem” the bill passed even if members never directly voted on it.

In another internal DOJ email communication that same week, Kagan alerted the chief of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel to the constitutional argument that a former U.S. Appeals Court judge was making against the use of this rule.

Then, during Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation process four months later, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her in writing if she had “ever been asked about your opinion” or “offered any view or comments” on the “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148 [PPACA], or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Want to just guess what her response was to the question? Yeah – she lied. She said no. Big surprise.

Hmmm – seems to be a common theme among Obama’s associates, doesn’t it?

Speaking of Obama and Co., he, Biden, and other dignitaries showed up to the Army/Navy game on Saturday. Navy won after Army had an offsides call at the end of the game, killing their scoring chance. Wouldn’t it be nice if Obama showed up for the country rather than trying to set neighbor against neighbor? Just a thought.

But since it is Sunday, and the holidays are coming on, I would be remiss if I didn’t include a musical interlude for your entertainment. With the holidays coming on, I can’t help but be reminded of this Joni Mitchell classic:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And this old classic performed by two of my fave “Glee” members:

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s an Open Thread. Talk about whatever is on your minds. Have a good day, friends!

Click here to view the embedded video.

[snip] Holder and one of his other deputies, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, have both admitted that statement was false in recent Senate hearings.

“The letter was withdrawn because there was information in there that was inaccurate,” Holder replied to Sensenbrenner’s question.

Still unsatisfied, Sensenbrenner followed up again. “Tell me what the difference is between lying and misleading Congress in this context?,” he asked Holder.

Holder responded that whether a statement is a lie or misleading comment depends on what the person making it is thinking at the time. (Click here to read the rest.)

Wow. Honestly, how does Holder come out with this BS and keep a straight face? When he’s not slumping back into his chair in disgust at being questioned, that is? What a crock.

Get this, though – Holder never, not ONCE, acknowledged just who signed off on this absurd program. Apparently, no one did, since in the 10 months he has been questioned about “Fast and Furious,” he has not come up with ONE name. And no one has been fired for their part in this, either. Just unbelievable.

And then there was the second hearing of Jon Corine appearing before Congress to try and explain where in the hell $1.2 BILLION dollars went. His answer? “I dunno.” Okay, okay, he said, “I do not know,” but really, he may as well have just shrugged his shoulders and given the first response. Oh, he feels bad about this, he really does. Not enough to use any of his multi-millions to DO anything about it for all of those folks who lost their money, or the employees who are out of jobs as a result. Nope. Screw them. He doesn’t know what happened to the money under his watch, but really, it’s just tough for those people. I am sure his “devastation” over what happened while he sits on his pile of money is a real comfort to those people who lost everything. Right.

This is not over yet, though. The investigation will continue, and he may well be brought up on charges. He sure SHOULD be, but we know how that can go, especially for close, personal friends/bundlers of Obama…

Sigh. Really? These is the guy responsible for our Justice Department? And the other one Obama and Biden’s “go-to” guy for all things financial? Holy cow.

Okay, it’s Friday, and time for a bit of a break. You can discuss the stories above, or anything else that hits you, but feel free to also share a musical interlude that appeals for a TGIF.

Here are my offerings for this Friday, with winter coming on:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And this one from the incomparable Sarah McLachlan:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Okay, friends – it’s all you now!

Good grief.

Thanks heavens some US Senators are speaking out about this incredibly sanitized, downright false characterization of Major Hasan’s intentions when he began to shoot down unarmed soldiers in the name of Allah. Here is more on this issue:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

It is just mind boggling that our government is attempting to sanitize to the point of absurdity the horrific attack by Major Hasan at Fort Hood. Senator Collins is correct, this is taking political correctness to an extreme that is downright dangerous.

And that denial is dangerous not just to the nation, but to our military, specifically:

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

“The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists’ scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,” Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday’s hearing.

In June, two men allegedly plotted to attack a Seattle, Wash., military installation using guns and grenades. In July, Army Pvt. Naser Abdo was accused of planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And in November, New York police arrested Jose Pimentel, who alleged sought to kill service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. (Click here to read the rest.)

And yet, knowing this, our government, in their infinite wisdom (cough, choke), has decided to redefine radical Islamic attacks as “workplace violence.” Wow. This is up there with Napolitano’s “man made disasters” term. But both are disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worse.

Of course, radical Islam is not the whole of Islam, but to deny its existence in this country is doing a tremendous disservice to those killed at 9/11, those killed at Fort Hood, those killed at bases overseas, those killed in the attack on the USS Cole, and so, so many more instances too numerous to mention here. Why our government seems more concerned with insulting these groups than naming them for what they are is just beyond me. This revisionist history must stop, and must stop now. Call it what it is by name. Nothing less will do.

How in the hell is Holder, and every single one of the administrators who went along with this, not indicted and facing trial? I’m no attorney, but I am fairly certain that money laundering is ILLEGAL, especially for the head of the US Justice Department.

As you might suspect, this is all part and parcel of the horrendously stupid “Fast and Furious” gun-walking program. Rep. Darrell Issa is doing his best to uncover the extent of this program under Holder:

[snip] The New York Times reported on Sunday that “in operations supervised by the Justice Department and orchestrated to get around sovereignty restrictions” drug enforcement agents “laundered or smuggled millions of dollars in drug proceeds as part of Washington’s expanding role in Mexico’s fight against drug cartels.”

In a Monday letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Issa announced he’s investigating the allegations made against the DEA in the New York Times article.

“As you are fully aware, since March of this year, I have been investigating the reckless tactics — in particular gunwalking — used in ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious,” Issa wrote. “That operation, which you personally acknowledged was ‘fundamentally flawed,’ failed spectacularly to meet its objective of bring down Mexican drug cartels. Precisely because the ends do not justify the means, the law limits the conduct alleged in this story.”

“Apparently, this same goal of dismantling Mexican drug cartels motivated the Drug Enforcement Administration in aiding and abetting these same cartels in laundering millions of dollars in cash,” Issa continued. “In fact, The New York Times reports that agents needed to seek Department approval to launder amounts greater than $10 million in any single operation.”

Issa wrote that, according to the report, many agents said the $10 million requirement was frequently “waived” because it was treated more like a guideline. He said that means “hundreds of millions of dollars” could’ve been “laundered” into the hands of drug cartels by the Obama administration and Holder’s Justice Department. (Click here to read the rest.)

This just gets worse and worse with every passing day. The NY Times article stated that the DEA did this in order to see how the drug cartels move their money. Because I am sure the DEA/DOJ just couldn’t figure it out any other way than laundering potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. This isn’t just folly, this is sheer insanity, and it starts at the top – all the way to the top with Obama, who is still standing behind Holder. Hell, he picked him in the FIRST place, so that tells you something right there.

And speaking of following the money, former NJ Governor and US Senator, Jon Corzine, is about to be on the hot seat this Thursday regarding the disappearance of $1.2 BILLION of investors’ money at MF Global. That is all bad enough, but like the “Fast and Furious” program, with every day, more information leaks out. Now it seems that Corzine threatened to quit his post if he was not allowed to throw money into European bonds.

And you may recall, Jon Corzine played an integral part in helping this Administration as evidenced by both President Obama and VP Biden heaping praise on Corzine in this video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Well, I think that explains a LOT, doesn’t it? But there is oh, so much more on this issue. Guess who sits on the advisory board of the PR Firm that worked for MF Global, and which provided financial advice to MF Global? That would be President Clinton. Former PM Tony Blair, too, but that’s the U.K.’s problem. The company, Teneo Holdings, was paid $625,000 for it’s work with MF Global:

[snip] Clinton’s office insists the former president did not profit from the relationship between MF Global and Teneo Holdings, where he is chairman of the advisory board. But Teneo, on whose advisory board former British Prime Minister Tony Blair also sits, was paid $125,000 a month for at least five months in one of MF’s biggest consulting arrangements, according to sources at the brokerage house.

The relationship was controversial within MF Global even before the company’s financial problems hit the news as executives questioned why an outside firm was needed for work that had long been done in-house.

“I don’t know what they did,” one MF source said. “It was always unclear.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, Obama and Biden’s financial guru will be spending some quality time in front of Congress trying to explain why he was so gung-ho about investing in European bonds, and how $1.2 Billion of investors’ money disappeared.

The workers at MF Global want to know, too, and are suing the executives who ran MF Global into the ground. Serves them right. I hope the workers get a ton of money from them.

I hope Rep. Issa and Congress continues to follow these money trails to the very end. And I hope some of these folks, like Holder and Corzine, end up in a room cell of their own. They deserve nothing less, don’t you think?

WaPo’s Dana Milbank asked this question in his latest opinion piece while doing his best to romanticize the movement. Milbank centered his story on folk rocker Jackson Browne’s recent attempts to rally a small group of OWS protesters in Washington, D.C.:

He played five political tunes but left out the one most relevant to the protest movement: “Running on Empty.”

Two months ago, there was hope that the Occupy Wall Street movement and its offshoots could be the start of political counterweight to the Tea Party. But that never happened, and any last chance of it ended when New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg closed the encampment in lower Manhattan.

Nationwide, the movement lost its idealistic roots amid reports of accidental deaths, drug overdoses and scattered violence. In Washington over the weekend, 31 demonstrators in McPherson Square, a previously peaceful encampment, were arrested in a standoff with police.

“Scattered violence”? There were rapes, sexual assaults, stabbings and beatings, Dana. Be honest. There have also been many reports of vandalism and damage to local small business in the areas of OWS protests that have dearly cost some of the very people the movement is allegedly supposed to help. Check out news reports that have been filed across the country in smaller papers from Boston, Massachusetts to Portland, Maine to Santa Cruz, California. But sharing that information would further blight a group even as it explains the very reasons why it has not caught fire.

Hot flash, Mr. Milbank: Most people are uncomfortable being associated with violence.

Further, some of the protesters quoted in the news seem unclear about what they wish to accomplish. They only know they want someone else to pay. No matter how angry I am with the excesses of Wall Street, I also know that the dishonest operatives among them could not function without more than a wink and a nod from Washington, so to rail against the “evil rich” is not cutting it for me. I also get offended when wealthy celebrities pretend solidarity with a group they would not allow into their own homes.

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan, himself a supporter of the movement, has expressed outrage that as long as Congress, and, I assume, the President, receive financial support from Wall Street, government entities are unlikely to risk cutting off their own source of campaign funds by doing something that benefits the consumer rather than their cushy benefactors. Milbank paints a sad picture of OWS:

In nearby Freedom Plaza, there are fewer tents than there were earlier in fall — and it wasn’t exactly booming then. When Browne, the 63-year-old singer and activist, walked to the microphones, there were all of 125 people to listen to the performance, including a media pack of about 40.

“You are the 99 percent!” Browne, in leather jacket, blue jeans and Salomon athletic shoes, told the modest crowd. “This is what democracy looks like.”

But this is not what a mass movement looks like.

Browne, questioned about the movement’s failure to ignite the masses, responded that people are “very angry” and that OWS would be a force to contend with in the 2012 elections. Then Mr. Browne engaged in a bit of Kool-Aid drinking when he stated:

“How angry people are is not really carried by the mainstream media.”

That is all they have been covering. Well, in a way. They, like Milbank, have done their best to romanticize the nobler intentions of a movement where the encampments, over time, have started to resemble the behavior in Lord of the Flies. I am sure many rank and file citizens have trouble being associated with that as well. Milbank continues:

No doubt people are angry – as well they should be after the high unemployment and low corporate responsibility of the last few years. But for whatever reason, they aren’t taking to the streets to join the demonstrators.

Yeah, Dana. They are angry. Many of us are angry. But we are also angry at an administration in power for three years that has had ample opportunity to “pivot to jobs” and instead has focused on anything but. Lip service is one thing. Action is quite another.

It is unfortunate that owing perhaps to differing political ideologies, the sincere members of both the Tea Party and OWS movements do not realize how much they have in common. This is not about CEOs. It is more about an elitist, protected government class that lives in a millionaire’s bubble and does as it pleases, showing only a vague passing interest to its constituents. Spitting at cops, spraying graffiti or throwing a brick through a local business window is not the way to express righteous outrage at the upper-echelon collusion now taking place. Criminal activity is a top down concern – not bottom up.

I recently wrote about Steve Croft’s 60 Minutes report on Congress’ “legal” insider trading scandal. In his story, Mr. Croft spoke with ex-Congressman Baird about his repeated attempts years ago to pass legislation banning the practice. With deep frustration, Baird shared that he could never get more than six people to co-sponsor such a measure. It died a quick death. Today, more that 120 co-sponsors exist for new legislation banning this outrageous behavior. So yes, knowledge is power. Information in the hands of the many led to appropriate outrage at our elitist Congress and perhaps, finally, action will be taken – but only if our representatives are afraid of losing their jobs.

This past Sunday, Croft also covered the fact that, to date, no Wall Street executives have been prosecuted for their part in escalating the Ponzi scheme that led to our near financial collapse. More foot dragging. Keep it up, Mr. Croft. Sharing this information with the American people may finally lead to the pitchfork moment Mr. Milbank is hoping for.

Yet in answer to Mr. Milbank’s question of why the OWS movement is not catching on, the bulk of Americans do not wish to take out their anger on other working stiffs or sully a city or town or country they love by adding to its mess. No matter if I sympathize with the cause or the politics of a particular group, I cannot stand with them if they are choosing to add violence to civil disobedience, or hurting the ability of others to make a living in the process. Just as I could not agree with Sandra Bernhard who threatened gang rape on Sarah Palin if she dared set foot in Manhattan.

Surely, it is possible to take the high road and still get the point across. And if I’m going to march, it will be on Washington, because only where laws are passed — and enforced — will change be made that can result in taxpayers’ respectful treatment.

Cough. I could barely type that out.

I guess he will just have to drag himself off the golf course (he has already played 88 games in his short time in office). Who could forget this iconic picture of the adults in the room when Seal Team Six was going after Osama bin Laden, and Obama sitting there in his golf clothes (photo courtesy of geneveith.com):

So, while Obama is off vacationing in the sun and surf, he admonishes Congress to stay in town and get things worked out for the extended tax cuts, according to The Hill, while blaming the Republicans for everything (forgetting -again – that the Senate is controlled by Dems):

[snip] “We’re going to keep pushing Congress to make this happen,” Obama said. “They shouldn’t go home for the holidays until they get this done.”

The president called out congressional Republicans for stalling legislation aimed at helping create jobs and spur the economy.

“Unfortunately, too many Republicans in Congress don’t seem to share that same sense of urgency,” he said. “Over the last few months, they’ve said ‘no’ to most of these jobs bills. ‘No’ to putting teachers and firefighters back to work. ‘No’ to putting construction workers back on the job. And this week, they actually said ‘no’ to cutting taxes for middle-class families.” (Click here to read the rest.)

I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that it is a bit hard to take someone’s admonition to work harder when Obama has consistently been absent from the big decisions. He has been so busy campaigning on our dime, or hiding upstairs in his room, watching sports, that he is HARDLY in any position to criticize the working habits of anyone else. IMHO, that is.

I reckon while the rest of the nation is worrying about paying its bills, or where their next meal is coming from, or how they will be able to get toys for their kids, much less heat their houses, Obama will be kicking back drinking a Mai Tai with a cute little umbrella on the sunny sandy shores of Hawaii with this exhortation:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And if you can’t be happy with all that is going on in the nation, just do what Obama does – blame the Republicans!

Open Thread, have at it!

And that would be Obamacare. Specifically, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a major part of the unread-before-passed-bill. You might know it better as the “Death Panels.” From The Daily Caller:

[snip]Frank, who announced Monday that he would retire at the end of his current term in office, became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB.

[...]

IPAB is a 15-member board, appointed by the president, scheduled to convene in 2014. In order to reduce per capita Medicare spending, the board will recommend levels at which Medicare recipients, including seniors, can be reimbursed for health care expenses.

In March, Roe told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared to “end-of-life counseling” Obamacare provisions which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.”

“This one is the real baby right here — and most people missed this,” Roe told TheDC then. “What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about these advanced directives where you sit down and there’s sort of mandatory counseling — and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed — and it’s the real death panel.”

Isn’t that pretty much what we had been saying? But wait, there is more:

“Basically, there’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated for Medicare spending each year,” Roe said in March. “Once you hit that amount that’s been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically appointed board, can then decide, not based on quality or need, but based on strictly cost.”

According to Diane Cohen, the conservative Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney covering Obamacare, IPAB is the “most notorious” of all the bureaucracies the health care law created because it hands Medicare payment decisions over to an unelected board. (Click here to read the rest.)

Isn’t this incredible? I guess it should be no surprise given the numerous czars Obama has put in place making major decisions for us. They aren’t elected, either. Hell, they aren’t even vetted by anyone! But that the Democrats, and it was SOLELY the Democrats, voted to make this the law of the land is telling indeed.

Too bad Rep. Frank didn’t make this decision two years, and maybe states wouldn’t be saddled with fighting the Constitutionality of Obamacare. They wouldn’t have to be spending so much time and treasure trying to protect their citizens from the unilateral move of one party against all of the objections of its citizenry. Party Before Country rules the day far too often, as I have said, and this was no exemption. But maybe, just MAYBE, these people will finally start caring more about the country than whatever perks they might get for selling their souls for the benefit of the Party leaders.

And speaking of money, given all of the brouhaha paid to mere whispers of allegations over Herman Cain 24/7, you may be surprised to learn that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton backstabbing opportunist, is under investigation for a regarding allegations of paying off his mistress. Oh, yes, and it was not a small sum of money, either, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

A federal grand jury is investigating former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over possible campaign-finance violations stemming from his 2008 presidential run, including allegations that he arranged for supporters to pay off a woman who planned to say they had engaged in an extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Several of Mr. Richardson’s close associates have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the panel in Albuquerque, the people said. The panel is one of several grand juries in recent years to examine aspects of Mr. Richardson’s administration and campaigns.

[...]

The investigation comes at a difficult time for New Mexico Democrats, who are struggling to regroup after losing the governor’s mansion—Mr. Richardson couldn’t run again because of term limits—and a number of state legislative seats in 2010. The state is considered a key battleground in the 2012 presidential election and also may be crucial to control of the U.S. Senate, as both parties fight for a vacant seat now held by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

New Mexico Republicans benefited in the last election from grand-jury investigations related to the departing Richardson administration, said Brian Sanderoff, president of an independent polling firm in Albuquerque. If an indictment rekindles memories of alleged Democratic corruption, “it sure won’t help” Democrats in 2012, he said.

Uh, yeah – I imagine that won’t be too helpful to the Democrats in New Mexico. And now for that number:

[snip]The most explosive matter under investigation involves allegations by a former member of Mr. Richardson’s inner circle. That individual said Mr. Richardson’s political allies gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe. They said the woman was a state employee at the time that she allegedly became romantically involved with Mr. Richardson around 2004. The woman’s identity has not been disclosed, and the type of suit considered has not been confirmed. (Click here to read the rest.)

The article goes on, and I recommend you read the rest. You may recall, as I mentioned above, that Richardson threw Hillary Clinton under the bus so fast when he thought he was going to get some plumb assignment in Obama’s Circle that the bus didn’t even have a chance to leave skid marks (Commerce Secretary was the post for which he was being considered). So, if you wondered why he never showed up with all of Obama’s Chicago Thugs Cronies, it was a question related to contributions for his presidential run, and the possibility of links to some contracts he made. You know, just like Obama has done with our money to places like Solyndra, and a whole HOST of jobs in his Administration.

Doesn’t that kind of beg the question of if it kept Richardson OUT of Obama’s Administration to have even the question of a possible link between donors and contracts, why is it okay for Obama to have filled his White House with donors, or give our money to companies owned by his donors? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe someone out there can fill me in.

Well, I will sure be interested to see how things shake out now that Barney has joined in to fight against the IPAB. Perhaps this is just the push we need to get this horrible law off the books, and do it RIGHT the next time, with thoughtful consideration, no handouts to Big Pharma, and the support of the majority of the people.

As for Richardson, couldn’t happen to a more deserving person, if you ask me. Sure would be nice if the media bothered to report on this the way they couldn’t WAIT to throw out mere rumors around Herman Cain, but I guess that is just too much to ask these days. Kinda like how they are gleeful over the new Unemployment numbers, until you read further down and find out WHY the numbers are lower. Even The Hill is guilty of that (and Eric Bolling said this morning that the new number is TOO low considering jobs created and files for unemployment, which I thought, too. It should be closer to 8.9%, not 8.6%.). Oh,and in case you missed why, it is because a big bunch of people just dropped out. They gave up. They just gave up trying to find work. THAT should be the headline, IMHO.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians stopped playing politics with people’s lives? Yeah, though I am not going to hold my breath for that day. Anyway, consider this an Open Thread. What’s on your minds?

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?