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?

The topic of his recent speech? How the Republicans will be GRINCHES if they do not pass pass the extension for Payroll Tax and Unemployment Benefits. This was one of the issues the Super Committee was supposed to undertake before their Super Fail.

Really? Yep, really – he said it:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Okay, maybe not just like that, but pretty close:

[snip] “Tell them, ‘Don’t be a Grinch.’ Don’t vote to raise taxes on working Americans during the holidays. Put the country before party. Put money back in the pockets of working families. Do your job. Pass our jobs bill,” Obama told the crowd of roughly 1,300.

“If Congress refuses to act, then middle-class families are going to get hit with a tax increase at the worst time. … We can’t let that happen. Not right now. It would be bad for the economy. It would be bad for employment,” Obama said. “Are they really willing to break their oath to never raise taxes, and raise taxes on the middle class just to play politics? [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

This from the most partisan president I can recall in years. And never mind that the Senate refuses to even consider the 22 bills the House has sent on jobs, or that it hasn’t bothered to pass a budget in years. It is ALL the Republicans fault. Even though the Democrats control two houses. And never mind that Obama was AWOL from the whole proceedings.

As I understand it, one of the biggest sticking points for the Republicans was the increase in taxes the Democrats kept pushing, as opposed to closing loopholes, which is what the Republicans were pushing (as in, you don’t raise taxes during a recession). So, first it is the Republicans’ fault for not going along with tax hikes, and now it is their fault that tax extensions weren’t passed.

Oh, and never mind that Obama blew off everything his OWN committee suggested. Talk about a monumental waste of time. Hmmm – I wonder, did we pay those people to do that? Because if we did, that, too, was a waste of money. Even when Sen. Toomey presented some of the committe’s recommendations, the Democrats would hear nothing of it.

But the Republicans are the obstructionists. Got it? That is the message. And it was intended all along. This whole Super Committee was destined to fail from the get-go, to achieve exactly what Obama wanted: Talking Points.

I think Obama has elevated talking out of both sides of one’s mouth to an art form.

Meanwhile, Obama is all to ready to cut the budget in one area: Defense. Despite the plea from pleas from Defense Secretary Panetta that Obama not do this, Obama has threatened to veto any attempt to remove that trigger. Yes, Defense Secretary Panetta said to cut the budget by as much as is planned would have devastating consequences to our National Security:

[snip] During the months the super committee deliberated, Panetta consistently urged lawmakers not to reduce national security spending beyond the more than $450 billion already approved by Congress in August.

Panetta said he had made clear the Pentagon had a responsibility to help the United States get its fiscal house in order, but added his primary responsibility as secretary of defense “is to protect the security of the nation.”

The Pentagon’s ability to provide benefits and support for U.S. troops and their families also would be jeopardized if the automatic cuts are allowed to go into effect, he said.

“Our troops deserve better, and our nation demands better,” Panetta said.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And to that, Obama essentially says, tough – blame it on the Republicans. It’s all their fault. Everything is all their fault. The Democrats are completely blameless in this discussion.

Got it. That’s the campaign in a nutshell. Evidently, we are supposed to have collective amnesia that the Democrats controlled all three houses for the first two years of Obama’s tenure. But hey – playing dirty is what Obama has done throughout his entire political career, from the very first run getting everyone thrown off the ballot to having divorce records of his opponents – Republican AND Democratic – revealed, to race baiting from early on in his career to this day. Check out this interesting video, which includes Obama from 1995. It is very telling indeed:

Click here to view the embedded video.

WOW. Just wow. Oh, and while it would take too long to go through everything he said, but unemployment in the African American community has increased to its highest level in 27 years since Obama too office. Just sayin’.

But that’s how he rolls. And I’m ready for him to roll on outta the White House. How about you?

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?

And just who are these Democratic pollsters, one might ask? Well, Patrick Caddell, for one, and Douglas Schoen for another. Now, I admit right up front that I am a bit partial to Patrick Caddell. Not only is he from a city in SC, close to the NC border, but he tells it like it is whether it is beneficial to his party or not, a rare find in today’s political exceedingly partisan world. Schoen is no slouch in that department, either, and I respect him as well.

And now to their headline-grabbing claim:

[snip] “He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.

[...]

“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.

Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – see what I mean? Telling it like it is. I happen to think they are 100% correct in their conclusion. Obama is the most partisan president I have ever seen, and his use of the Super Committee as a campaign talking point makes the case. As I have stated previously, this is NOT the time to play party politics. This is the time to work to save the nation, and we all have to work together toward that end. Yet, Obama refuses to accept any recommendations of the very committee he put together (Simpson Bowles), and the Democrats refuse to hear plans based on those recommendations because they come from – the horror – a Republican (Toomey). Sheer insanity.

One interesting twist to this drumbeat for Obama to step down from a re-election campaign is who the pollsters mentioned above think should take his place: Hillary Rodham Clinton. From their piece in the Wall Street Journal:

[snip] He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Interesting, no? But in the same breath as why she should be the nominee, is why many of us would have problems with this successor: Clinton is a loyal member of the Obama Administration. Uh, yeah…

Now, most of us also know that Clinton should have been, and would have been, the 2008 Nominee had the DNC and Obama Campaign not engaged in a tremendous amount of well-documented shenanigans, some illegal, and others unethical and immoral. Not only did the DNC violate the law in 13 states (see jbjd’s excellent report on this), but their machinations 5/31/08 to steal lawfully cast votes from Clinton to give to Obama was the last straw for many dyed in the wool, yellow dog Democrats, like myself.

But that was then, and this is now. Though I have to say, I do like the idea of not having to hear Obama continue his Us/Them attacks for another freakin’ year. I would be MORE than happy for him to just throw in the towel now. And he can take Michelle “I Pay $15,000 A Day For Makeup” Obama with him. Oh, wait – SHE doesn’t pay it. WE pay it. And that is a helluva lotta coin for MAKEUP. IMHO, that is.

So, yeah – I agree with Caddell and Schoen that it’s time for them to take their leave from DC. How about you?