Background

Investigative reporter Celia Farber

Farber filed the case after Semmelweis Society International (SSI) asked investigator Clark Baker to investigate allegations made by pharmaceutical marketers Richard Jefferys, James Murtagh MD and Kevin Kuritzky.  Jefferys and his cohorts used Critpath and the Federal AIDS Policy Partnership (FAPP) to incite activists into forcing Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) into preventing Farber and UC Professor Peter Duesberg PhD from testifying before Congressional tribunals about pharmaceutical retaliation.  Said Jefferys:

… it appears that Celia Farber & Peter Duesberg - two inveterate liars who try and persuade people that HIV is harmless and that they should avoid testing & treatment – are participating in an event called the No FEAR Tribunal in Congress on Wednesday May 14.

The No FEAR Institute is a whistleblower-supporting initiative in which Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee seems to have a lead role.  I’m afraid that they have somehow been conned into involving Duesberg & Farber in this event, if anyone has contacts with Sheila Jackson Lee’s office and could alert them, that would be great… (Jefferys)

After several requests, one of Jefferys assistants wrote:

This is ridiculous. Can a bunch of us mobilize calls to her office?  Perhaps we need just a few talking points so that we’re all saying the same thing? Who can help do this?   Needs to happen within the next 48 hours. Thanks Richard for the heads up! (Sue Perez)

When activists succeeded, Diana Scholl prepared the propaganda:

I’m working on a story for the Housing Works Update about the AIDS denialists Duesberg and Farber. (fyi-, they did NOT testify in Congress or attend the award ceremony but they will still receive the awards).  If anyone on the list contacted Rep. Lee or the organizers, please send me an e-mail and let me know any reaction you received.

Like TAG and dozens of other pro-socialist organizations, Housing Works is funded by the CDC, George Soros and companies that use AIDS to avoid corporate liability from environmental pollution. Scholl wrote:

Farber and Duesberg have long disseminated factually inaccurate and dangerous information about HIV. Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California-Berkeley, believes that AIDS is caused by antiretrovirals rather than HIV. Farber has written many sympathetic portrayals of Duesberg, including a 2006 Harper’s magazine article, “Out of Control: AIDS And The Corruption of Medical Science”. She wrote, “Duesberg thinks that up to 75 percent of AIDS cases in the West can be attributed to drug toxicity. If toxic AIDS therapies were discontinued, he says, thousands of lives could be saved virtually overnight.” This theory has been widely disproved, but has still gained currency: In one 2007 U.S. study, 45 percent of gay men didn’t believe HIV causes AIDS. South African President Thabo Mbeki is a Duesberg endorser.

Scholl’s propaganda was splattered on numerous pharmaceutical websites without any mention about the millions paid to TAG and other activists to attack them.  Since 2004, the pharmaceutical has paid $9 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that killed or injured thousands of people around the world every year.  The pharmaceutical industry has used drug addicts and homosexuals to market AIDS drugs and protest those who question the arrangement.  (More here and here.)

The Investigation

James Murtagh MD

When SSI asked Baker to investigate the allegations, Murtagh and Kuritzky made repeated efforts to dissuade him and SSI from looking into the case.  When Baker was suddenly deluged with thousands of gay and AIDS spam emails, Baker tracked the ID theft back to Kuritzky’s IP address.  When Baker reported the inappropriate use of VA servers,  Dr. Murtagh’s contract with the Veteran’s Administration was not renewed.

According to Brian Foley PhD, Murtagh asked Foley to contact one of Baker’s witnesses. Using a false name, Foley intimidated the witness and contacted several of his associates.   Baker tracked the emails back to Foley’s employer at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) – an act that Foley corroborated despite LANL’s refusal to investigate.

UC Berkeley manages LANL.  If AIDS funding was suddenly cut off at Berkeley, the university and LANL would lose tens of millions of dollars annually.  Berkeley’s latest allegations against Duesberg were dismissed last May.  Murtagh later admitted to being funded by South African activists - who are funded by TAG. (More here).

Since 1992, the National Institutes of Health have paid UC Berkeley has more than $100 million each year.

Baker memorialized his investigation at Hollywood Gumshoe.  SSI and hundreds of other websites have posted it as well, while pharmaceutically-funded editors at Wikipedia have repeatedly erased it.

Courts Not Impressed with Jefferys’ Defense

After an in-depth reading of documentation from both sides–materials pertaining to what he called “a bitter dispute in the medical, scientific, and advocacy communities over the cause and proper treatment of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome,” Justice Louis B. York returned a decision this week to deny Richard Jefferys‘ (TAG) motion to dismiss Farber’s libel suit.  Justice York converted Jefferys’ motion to a motion for summary judgment.

“Here’s the good news,” said Farber attorney Phil Byler, of Nesenoff & Miltenberg, a renowned New York firm specializing in libel:

The court correctly concluded that the motion to dismiss could not be granted because there is in fact a dispute over material facts here; a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence can only be granted if the presented document or documents conclusively establishes there is no case.

Unfortunately for the drug industry, the court recognized the difference between pharmaceutical marketing and scientific evidence.

“I am delighted,” said Farber. “My assailants will no longer be permitted to hide beneath the skirts of NPR, The Nation, or the Columbia Journalism Review, but will instead have to face the incorruptible facts outside their financial and ideological bubble.  I look forward to presenting the judge with the next round of documentation.”

Shortly after Farber filed her lawsuit, Critpath (FAPP) scrubbed their servers and added security to prevent investigators from illustrating how the pharmaceutical industry, CDC, NIH and pro-socialist activists use libel, threats and intimidation to attack drug industry critics.  All of the Critpath traffic from May 2008 is posted here.

Nancy Turner Banks, MD

This time, JTD’s target was Nancy Banks M.D., who spent 25 years as a general obstetrician/gynecologist (OBGYN) attending patients at North General, Nyack Hospital, Columbia Presbyterian and Mt. Sinai Hospital and Medical Center.  Dr. Banks has cared for thousands of women who trusted her as their primary physician, obstetrician and surgeon.  Despite her busy practice, the former director of outpatient gynecology at the North General Hospital (Harlem, New York) found time to earn her MBA and write the book AIDS, Opium, Diamonds and Empire, which chronicles of the history and corruption of HIV and AIDS research and policy. (audio)

Pharmaceutical Handlers

As for JTD, no one would have heard of him if not for Cornell University Prof. John P. Moore PhD and University of Connecticut Prof. Seth Kalichman PhD, who first encouraged him to help them celebrate Christine Maggiore’s death in 2008.  Although millions of people die each year from adverse drug reactions (ADRs), Moore and Kalichman used their academic positions to falsely claim that Maggiore had died from AIDS – months before her pathology report was released.

Like Celia Farber, Peter Duesberg PhD and others, Christine Maggiore was both hated and feared by the drug industry for questioning the rationale of delivering deadly psychotropic carcinogens to pregnant mothers based upon tests that manufacturers admit are unreliable. Despite test inaccuracies, millions of healthy people (especially black women and homosexuals) are routinely misdiagnosed and prescribed drugs that suppress immunity, cause anemia and melt skin.  If tracked like heart disease and cancer, ADRs would represent the sixth leading cause of US mortality - far above the non-existent AIDS pandemic..

For Moore and Kalichman’s handiwork, the NIH pays their employers (Weill and U. Conn) millions of dollars, of which Moore ($34 million) and Kalichman ($17 million) are compensated for writing belligerent emails (2), blogging and managing unhinged activists like JTD.  Baylor also profits, but pays JTD something closer to minimum wage.

NIH and National Security

Although infectious diseases (including AIDS .0076%) has remained statistically irrelevant since 1955, President Clinton declared AIDS to be a national security threat the same year that South African President Thabo Mbeki questioned its relevance.

While US officials parroted hyper-inflated UN estimates, South Africa’s actual numbers remained insignificant as recently as 2007.  But because mine-related lung diseases and lawsuits threatened to collapse the international mining industry and global economy during the 1990s, the US government suddenly needed the harmless retrovirus as much as junk scientists and promiscuous homosexuals needed it during the 1980s.

The Politics of HIV

With the creation of organizations like Rethinking AIDS, HEAL London, The Perth Group and thousands of ethical scientists and researchers finally speaking out, pharmaceutical shills like Moore and Kalichman need people like JTD more than ever.  So when Dr. Banks published her book, they framed JTD’s objection with tired allegations of bigotry.

No one would care if JTD was just another meth addict.  But because he self-identifies as homosexual, he assails those who question his pharmaceutical faith as bigots – as if his sexual preference somehow excuses his self-destructive behaviors. When police arrested JTD in 2009, he was convicted of drunk driving - NOT being gay.

Jeffrey "JT" DeShong

While Dr. Banks carefully identifies co-factors like drug abuse, promiscuous behavior, anal intercourse, rectal injuries, infections, parasites and venereal disease, JTD (Moore & Kalichman)  twists her analysis as if she considers homosexuality itself a “lifestyle choice.”  Although Banks agrees that millions of responsible homosexuals do not engage in self-destructive behavior, ignoring the large minority of homosexuals who do would be – from an honest researcher’s perspective – irresponsible.

For example, Ghaziani and Cook (2005) described circuit parties as:

(W)eekend-long, erotically charged, drug prevalent dance events attended by up to 25 000 self-identified gay and bisexual men who socialize and dance nonstop, sometimes for 24 hours or longer.  Although these parties started originally as part of the gay community’s response to raise HIV/AIDS awareness and to build community and cultural identity, they may have become a site for transmitting (disease) across geographical regions and socioeconomic groups of gay and bisexual men.

According to their report:

The men dance to bass-pounding electronic rhythms amid multicolored lights and laser shows, often with exotic entertainers performing on stage, sometimes erotically…  (and) engage in… unprotected anal intercourse (UAI)… The parties themselves serve as “gay celebratory . . . events . . . important to many men,” who cite as a major reason for attending the “feeling of community” they find there… “a symbol of freedom for the gay community” that “brings all aspects of the community together, people from all walks of life” so that circuit parties embody “our family, our gay family…  67% of attendees reporting that they had anal or oral sex during a party weekend, and 49% reporting that they had only anal sex…  Most men reported seeing that condoms were available at the party, but few reported taking them. The incidence of UAI increased with the number of partners and of drugs (cocaine, heroin, poppers and meth) are used.

John P. Moore, PhD

Even today, thousands of message boards and websites (i.e. Just Circuit, Party List, and Circuit Party Guide) show that circuit parties are as popular as ever.  JTD’s feigned outrage stems not from Dr. Banks’ alleged bigotry, but that her book attributes the disease to behavioral decisions.

In countries like Botswana and Zimbabwe, Americans would rather believe that Africans are dying from AIDS rather than from environments polluted by international mining companies that keep the global economy afloat.

While JTD’s handlers want the world to believe that HIV threatens responsible people (homo- and heterosexual), their own peers admit that HIV was unethically promoted as a heterosexual disease to generate profits.   Even the discoverer of HIV admits that HIV can be cured without drugs within weeks but that the drug industry (and NIAID Director Anthony Fauci) cannot profit by selling clean water and good nutrition.

To sell their propaganda, drug companies rely on an army of gay activists who promote AIDS in theological terms.  Believers need not see scientific evidence but should accept what they’re being told.  To them, the greatest sin is to deny what activists are willing to die for.

Judas Horses

For hundreds of years, cowboys have trained horses to lead wild herds into captivity.  Like the helicopter-cowboys that terrorize roaming herds, the drug industry uses the media and Judas horses to drive gullible Americans toward their dangerous drugs and meaningless tests.

Seth Kalichman, PhD

Arguably, the industry’s most famous pony is basketball great Earvin “Magic” Johnson, whose early retirement created an unprecedented explosion of calls to AIDS hotlines and clinics.  Although reportedly cured by 1997, Magic has earned millions by pushing HIV tests and drugs in black communities.  In 2006, Magic received $60 million from Abbott Labs alone.

While Magic pushes pills in black communities, Peter Staley remains the industry’s undisputed prima donna in the gay community.  Shortly after researchers suggested that junkies (1988) and homosexuals (1992) could be used to educate the public about AIDS, the NIH, CDC and drug companies found in Staley a former bond trader who was not only a gay meth addict, but also had the skills to pitch deadly drugs (It was like being drunk or high.  Actually, I kind of liked it) while organizing a homosexual army that the drug industry could use to push drugs under the pretext of human rights.

This wasn’t a new tactic.

Drug Sales as a Human Right

Larry Kramer

Six years after the first group of promiscuous gay men began to appear in hospitals in 1981, Reagan Administration officials were still grappling with unanswered questions about HIV.  At the same time, playwright Larry Kramer and 300 other gay activists (including Staley) descended upon the FDA to demand relaxed regulations, low pricing and AZT (Retrovir).

When President Reagan asked about the controversy, then-HHS Secretary Otis Bowen MD warned that AZT “is very toxic and destroys blood cells and organs.”  Ten weeks later, NIH virologist Samuel Broder declared that AZT “reduces the occurrence of life-threatening opportunistic infections”.  After weeks of withering accusations that homophobes were withholding lifesaving drugs from dying gay men, the White House relented, which led to the small spike (.00015%) in mortality.  Coincidentally, mortality tapered in 1996 when they lowered the dosage.

Staley’s Army

Gay activism has been tied to HIV from the beginning.  When the AIDS hysteria of 1983 fizzled to mortality levels of .0076% in 1986, CDC officials began to worry that taxpayers wouldn’t fund treatment for a small number of sick men.  Drug makers needed activists to push drugs while the CDC needed sick men.  To make that happen, drug companies sponsored dance parties where thousands of men were recruited in baptisms of depravity:

The NIH reported:

In addition to smoking and snorting (meth)… some administer the drug anally.  This type of administration of the drug along with unprotected “marathon sex” with numerous partners can damage the rectal lining and increase the likelihood of HIV and other STI transmission.

Peter Staley

The NIH funds (directly and indirectly) propaganda sources like POZ, The Body and organizations like TAG and websites like AIDSMeds – both of which were founded by charismatic gay meth-addict Peter Staley.  Staley’s handlers also used him to establish gay activist groups like TAG, AFFA and Act Up.  In 2009, Staley asked for 100,000 more activists to join his army.

More to Come

As implausible as this might sound, a small contingent (HCGHAC) interrupted President Obama’s Harvard speech two weeks ago in an effort to extort more funding above the absurd levels already wasted.  HCGHAC is an umbrella group for pharmaceutically-funded activist/marketing groups that push deadly drugs like Sustiva in countries like Ghana, where children smoke it like crack cocaine.

Despite the spread of disease and ADRs in these venues, mortality has remained statistically insignificant in the US, Europe (2), Australia and South Africa (2007).  Nevertheless, the NIH continues to pay doctors to poison healthy patients – even children.  Last week, a toddler who probably won’t get sick from a few needle pricks was prescribed HIV drugs that will probably kill her.

It’s hard to say why people like Moore, Kalichman and others exploit JTD sell their credibility to an industry that has paid $8 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints since 2004.  But when they attack someone as respected as Dr. Banks as a bigot, at least we know why.

The message is clear - If you’re concerned about issues like eminent domain and corruption, don’t look for relief in the Superior Court.  And by endorsing judicial candidates, Angelenos now know who not to re-elect.

The revelations are based upon Prof. Susan Reverby’s investigation into the NIH-funded experiments by virologists John C. Cutler and George Shattuck.  Their assumptions about race and venereal disease followed them from Tuskegee to Guatemala, where they conducted secret experiments in military barracks, mental hospitals and an orphanage without the consent of their victims or families.

To obtain cooperation, Cutler’s team delivered drugs, a refrigerator, movie projector and kitchen utensils to local officials.   Virologists then convinced their victims to cooperate, plying them with cigarettes before administering infectious inoculations, blood draws, spinal taps and applying syphilitic puss into abraded penises and cervixes.  Researchers also hired prostitutes who, if not already sick, were deliberately infected before sex with targeted inmates.

Like Tuskegee, Dr. Cutler’s team told trusting patients that their infectious syphilis injections were actually a drug treatment designed to improve their health.

Prof. Reverby writes that the virologists “knew that secrecy, and even law-breaking was sometimes necessary to further research,” quoting the father of virology who later explained:

(I)t’s against the law to do many things, but the law winks when a reputable man wants to do a scientific experiment.  For example, the criminal code of the City of New York holds that is a felony to inject a person with infectious material. Well, I tested out live yellow fever vaccine right on my ward in the Rockefeller Hospital. It was no secret, and I assure you that the people in the New York City Department of Health knew it was being done.  Unless the law winks occasionally, you have no progress in medicine.

Unfortunately, her revelations are not as important as what her report ignores.  These unnecessary acts did not occur in a vacuum.  Dozens – if not hundreds of peer-researchers, supervisors and administrators participated, acquiesced or covered up crimes that occurred in what Reverby describes as the prevailing “culture of research.”

Earlier this year, UMKC professor William Black describes the criminogenic culture this way:

The leading textbook in corporate law… says that rules against fraud (are) neither necessary nor particularly important.  We don’t need laws.  We don’t need an FBI.  We don’t need a Justice Department.  We don’t even need rules like the SEC.  The markets “cleanse themselves” automatically and prevent all frauds…  There is an enormous ideological content and it fits with class and it fits with… political contributions.  Do you want to look at seemingly responsible institutions, which are your leading political contributors, as crooks?

We now have the entitlement generation as CEOs. They just plain feel entitled to being as wealthy as Croesus with no responsibility, no accountability. They have become literal sociopaths… (B)usiness schools, which right now are fraud factories at the senior levels… create the new monsters that take control and destroy massive enterprises…

Honest investigators understand that criminal organizations don’t reform themselves.  Left unchanged, they metastasize (i.e. Bernie Madoff, Enron, Big Tobacco, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, etc.) until a “transformational event” like discovery, indictments and fines interrupt the operations and destroy the enterprise.

Despite 29 pages and 69 references, Reverby gives no indication that anyone was ever held accountable or whether the agencies and management were purged of those who permitted it to happen; which may be why more recent scandals of experimentation and deadly treatments are still not widely reported by the media.  Prof. Reverby’s detached analysis of America’s prurient horror over the “‘bad old days’ of medical research” fails to ask important questions:

• When did researchers of the “bad old days” surrender their jobs and offices for ethical researchers who were willing to identify, hold accountable or dismiss the corrosive influence of psychopaths and corruption?  If this never occurred;
• Why do taxpayers continue to spend billions of dollars on agencies like HHS, CDC and NIH when infectious disease became statistically irrelevant by 1955?

Left unanswered, we have a better idea of why the NIH wastes billions of dollars on virologists like John P. Moore PhD and Daniel Kuritzkes MD who libel and threaten critics (2) and encourage journalists to destroy the careers of ethical researchers and journalists while promoting carcinogens that compromise immune function as products that enhance immune function and save lives.  It also explains why the pharmaceutical industry has spent more than $8 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints since 2004 on behalf of thousands of Americans who are injured or killed by these drugs every year.

In the context of these facts, Guatemala and Tuskegee merely provided the template, rationale and foundation for the deadly quackery of modern virology today.

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it’s going to be later—much later. Here’s why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She’s been with us for over 15 years. She’s a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That’s the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She’s lucky she doesn’t live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers’ comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally’s Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally’s job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this “summer of recovery.” We can’t pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we’d lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.

And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company’s vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government’s message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.

Mr. Fleischer is president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.

(SOURCE) http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704017904575409733776372738-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

Money: On both a macro level and a micro level, Republicans are seriously behind in the money chase. Most candidates enrolled in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Frontline program for endangered incumbents have huge cash leads over their rivals, and the DCCC has nearly twice as much on hand as the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Plenty of newly elected Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 while being outspent, but they weren’t outspent by much. Only Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., won after being outspent by more than a 3-1 ratio. Republican challengers will close the gap over the next few months, but they have a long way to go.

Wilson didn’t learn the lesson that he cited. Rep. Shea-Porter won in a wave election though she was clearly outspent. The lesson Wilson should’ve learned is that a different set of rules apply in wave elections than in typical elections. This is, in every credible political expert’s view, a wave election. The only thing left to be determined is the size of the wave.

Here’s another reason Wilson cites:

Turnout: Beyond advertising, money pays for turnout operations, another area in which Democrats have a clear advantage. The Democratic National Committee has pledged $30 million in cash and services to turn out the estimated 15 million voters who cast their first ballots for President Obama in 2008, and the DCCC has put an average of five field staffers on the ground in 75 districts.

If there’s anything that’s been proven througout the primaries it’s that Democrats aren’t energized. Money is important in putting the mechanics in place. Money won’t take the place of enthusiasm, though, to voters. Right now, independents are turning out for Republicans because they’re appalled with President Obama’s radical agenda.

Furthermore, it’s obvious that, in state after state, the GOP’s GOTV operations are operating efficiently.

That radical agenda probably is driving the problems that this Politico article highlights:

In two close races, endangered Democrats are even running ads touting how they oppose their leadership.

“Democrats kept thinking: ‘We’re going to get better. We’re going to get well before the election,’” said one of Washington’s best-connected Democrats. “But as of this week, you now have people saying that Republicans are going to win the House. And now it’s starting to look like the Senate is going to be a lot closer than people thought.”

A Democratic pollster working on several key races said, “The reality is that [the House majority] is probably gone.” His data show the Democrats’ problems are only getting worse. “It’s spreading,” the pollster said.

Each week, we read of new races that weren’t endangered that now are. Look at Barney Frank’s sudden Come-to-Jesus moment with Fannie and Freddie. If he wasn’t at least worried, there isn’t a chance that he’d turn on his friends running Fannie and Freddie. Now, he’s telling everyone they should be abolished.

“We have been saying for the past 18 months this will be a politically challenging environment,” said Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “That being said, we will retain the majority in the House. All of what you are hearing is the inside-the-Beltway chatter.”

Politically challenging??? When the other party is poised to win 10-15 seats, it’s a politically challenging year. Republicans aren’t looking at winning only 15 seats.

If GOP strategists don’t have a realistic goal of winning at least 50 seats, then they’re shooting too low. I’m not saying that they should be saying that publicly but I’m saying that they should be shooting for it privately.

Rep. van Hollen is kidding himself if he thinks that they’ll be competitive this year. I’m certain he doesn’t think that. When private polling shows Lou Barletta leading Corruptocrat Paul Kanjorski by 12 points, that isn’t inside-the-beltway imaginations running wild. That’s inside-the-district reality setting in.

If I had to bet, I’d bet that van Hollen’s comments are based more on keeping morale from tanking so they don’t get totally obliterated this November. Obviously, that’s speculation but that’s what it looks like to me.

Tonight during Greta’s interview with Dick Morris, she said that nationwide, 350,000 more people had voted in Republican primaries than in Democratic primaries. That’s a huge disparity in turnout, indicating a significant enthusiasm gap. That gap won’t close between today and Election Day. If anything, it might widen a bit in that time.

Morris said that the biggest gain in a midterm election by either party came from the 1920s. That net gain in seats was 74. Tonight, Dick Morris predicted that the Republicans will eclipse that record. I’m still skeptical of that prediction but I’m thinking that the end result will be alot closer to 74 than to 34.

I’ll also predict that the fundraising advantage that the Democrats currently hold will flip as people start realizing that Republicans will be taking control of the House. That isn’t a bet-the-ranch type prediction but it’s in the ‘tidy sum of money’ category.

If I had one piece of advice for my Democratic friends, it’s that they’d better resign themselves to defeat and/or they start buying Maalox a couple bottles at a time. It’s gonna be that bad.

Technorati Tags: Polling, Dick Morris, Lou Barletta, GOTV, Fundraising, Enthusiasm Gap, Wave Election, Paul Kanjorski, Carol Shea-Porter, Chris van Hollen, DCCC, President Obama, Barney Frank, Democrats, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Republican negative ad writers always delight in describing the Stimulus package as bloated, wasteful, government-growing, and useless. The adjectives get in the way. The polling we’ve done indicates that the simple words “stimulus package” convey all that and more.

There is no need to call Obama’s health care legislation “a government attempt to take over our health care” or a bill to “slash medical care for the elderly” or an “attempt to force rationing of care.” The simple word Obamacare conveys the same meanings.

Why describe cap and trade as “job killing” or “driving jobs overseas” when the words cap and trade say these same things to voters?

Less is more. Why use words that clutter? It isn’t like the people don’t know what Obamacare is. It isn’t like they don’t already have a negative view of it. Ditto with Cap and Trade. Ditto with the stimulus.

Vice President Biden got his nickers in a knot Tuesday when John Boehner gave a major economic address in which he said that the stimulus failed. Miserably. Biden can whine all he wants but defending President Obama’s stimulus plan is a losing fight. Here’s Morris’ suggestion for an ad that works:

A simple ad along these lines will be far more effective for a Republican challenger to a Democratic incumbent than any elaborately conceived negative commercial:

“Do you support the $850 billion stimulus package Obama passed last year? Joe Democrat voted yes. Harry Republican says no.

The TARP bailout? Democrat voted in favor. Republican is opposed.

Obamacare? Joe Democrat supported it. Harry Republican would have voted no.

Cap and Trade? Democrat yes, again. Republican, no.

Vote for the one that agrees with you.”

People aren’t in a live-and-let-live mood these days. They’re unemployed or underemployed, possibly in danger of losing their home to foreclosure and worrying about their kids’ future. If that isn’t enough, and it is, people feel like the government isn’t listening to them.

Never in my lifetime have I seen a group of people so motivated to throw the liberal bums out, not even in 1994. They’re well-informed, too. Most have done their due diligence and just need to be pointed in the right direction. If that’s the case, just point them in the right direction, then get out of their way. Don’t overcomplicate things.

Most troubling to Democrat strategists is that these voters can’t wait to get to the polls. Either that or it’s that the worst is yet to come. What we’re seeing now is voters expressing their digust with the Obama administration and the Reid/Pelosi regime. We haven’t seen the partisan trend yet and we haven’t seen the new Contract-like document yet.

Republicans are witholding those documents until everyone is fully tuned in. It’s like a distance runner holding a little back until the final half-lap. Think of the races where the favorite is setting a strong pace, then the last half-lap arrives and suddenly he pulls away.

That’s what I predict will happen this year. Call it a crystallizing moment or the moment of realization or whatever. It’s coming and it will break the conservatives’ way.

If Republicans keep working hard and enunciating clear messages, in the manner that Dick Morris said, this election will be a powerful repudiation of President Obama’s and Speaker Pelosi’s agenda.

Technorati Tags: Dick Morris, Stimulus, Obamacare, Cap And Tax, Negative Ads, Job-Killing, Tax Increases, Messaging, TARP, Bailouts, Economy, TEA Party, Republicans, Democrats, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The campaign for the Wisconsin 7th District House seat being vacated by retiring Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey took a strange turn on Friday as the state Democratic Party claimed to have obtained a copy of Republican candidate Sean Duffy’s as yet unannounced economic plan.

“The Democratic Party of Wisconsin on Thursday got its hands on Sean Duffy’s economic plan in advance of its planned release next week and found that, in it, Duffy has applied his life lessons of getting drunk on television and being a mediocre political appointee,” the Wisconsin Democrats’ press release said.

This smacks of desperation. Sean Duffy has garnered endorsements from Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, which means that they see Duffy as a serious candidate with a legitimate shot at winning. RCP rates WI-7 as leans Republican.

According to this article, this isn’t the Democrats’ first desperate attack against Sean Duffy:

Recently the campaign got ugly and desperate when The Democratic Party of Wisconsin sent out a press release on April 14, 2010 attacking Sean Duffy for being a white supremacist and used racial overtones to do it.

The press release stated, “Duffy was scheduled to appear at a Wausau Tea Party event Thursday alongside white supremacist Alabama militia Col. John Eidsmoe (Eidsmoe since canceled).” It continues, “But even before not answering questions about the Tea Party scandal, Duffy was not answering questions about his unexplained role at a Wisconsin Dells resort where he reportedly fled the scene after his wife got into a shoving match with GOP rival Dan Mielke. Shortly thereafter, his campaign manager either quit or was fired.”

Wisconsin Democrats know that this seat is lost if they can’t muddy Sean Duffy through a prolonged smear attack, something that I’m familiar with as an observer of the Dayton family’s attempt to buy the gubernatorial election for Sen. Dayton through a series of dishonest ads against Tom Emmer.

The Democrats, whether they’re located in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or Ohio, know that they’re running uphill into a stiff headwind. They’ve been told to run away from the legislation they’ve passed. This administration’s economic policies have stunk up the joint. That’s the context in which this race is set in.

Is it any wonder that the Wisconsin Democratic Party is hurling one smear after another at Sean Duffy? It pains them to think that the seat that David Obey has occupied the last 20 terms will soon be held by Republican Sean Duffy. It’s the Wisconsin equivalent of Martha Coakley losing Ted Kennedy’s seat.

What’s great to see is that the Duffy campaign gives better than it gets. check this response out:

Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm fired back with a press release. It stated, “In response to the baseless claims of racism thrown at Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy, Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm, said the Democrat Party of Wisconsin (DPW) owes the Republican congressional candidate and his family an apology. Today, the DPW and its Chairman Mike Tate accused Duffy, who is married to Rachel Campos-Duffy, a Mexican-American, of being a white supremacist.”

Seaholm said, “Sean Duffy is proudly married to a Mexican-American and together they have six wonderful children. The DPW crossed the line by blatantly playing the race card and insulting the Latino community. The Democrats owe the Duffy family an apology and Mr. Tate should resign immediately.”

That’s stunning. That isn’t just a response. That’s a Game. Set. Match. type of response. Seaholm’s reply didn’t just counterpunch. It delivered the knockout blow that takes that subject off the table for the rest of this election cycle. You can’t respond more forcefully or more completely.

In that exchange between the Democrat Party of Wisconsin and Matt Seaholm, Seaholm is the clear winner. That doesn’t mean that it’s the last cheapshot that the Democrat Party of Wisconsin will throw at the Duffy campaign. They’ll definitely throw more cheapshots at him. I’m not worried, though, because it’s obvious that the Duffy campaign will consistently get the upper hand in these exchanges.

I suspect that this race is like other races across the country. The Republican is leading the race but they taste victory so intensely that they’ll continue campaigning like they’re 2 points behind with 3 weeks left in the campaign.

Put differently, it’s better to be a Republican than a Democrat and Republicans will keep outworking Democrats through till Election Day.

Technorati Tags: Sean Duffy, Matt Seaholm, District Attorney, TEA Party, Budget, Republicans, David Obey, Ted Kennedy, Mark Dayton, Smear Campaigns, Democrats, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

After seeing first time unemployment applications jump to 500,000 this week and with Q2 GDP getting revised downward again to an anemic 2.4 and poised to be revised downward again to possibly 1.4 percent, it’s obvious that the economy is slowing mightily, possibly slowing enough to bring us into a second recession.

The reality of it is that President Obama’s policies and legislation are dragging the economy down.

People have said that there are too many unknowns for businesses, which is leading to job creators to sit on the sidelines. A legitimate argument can be made for that, especially with it being unknown whether the Bush tax cuts will expire or whether they’ll pass Cap and Trade or Card Check. These obviously weigh heavily on the minds of entrepreneurs.

Still, I’m certain that a potent argument can be made that employers aren’t jumping in because they know that labor cost are too expensive. They know that the cost of compliance with the financial regulations bill will be expensive. Ditto with Obamacare. It’s to the point that Democrat pollsters and strategists are telling their candidates not to tout the main talking points about Obamacare:

“The fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed” to persuade the public, the consultants argued, based on polling about voters’ attitudes and beliefs about the new health-care law. They advised the candidates to stay away from claims that the law will reduce costs and deficits. Instead, the Democrats should “use personal stories, coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual level.”

People haven’t forgotten President Obama’s sales pitch that Obamacare would reduce health care costs and shrink the deficit nor have they forgotten Speaker Pelosi’s asinine statement that they had to pass the bill for everyone to see all the great things that were allegedly contained in the bill.

There’s no doubt but that President Obama has “owned the trend”, as Greta van Susteren says, since passing ARRA. Though President Obama refuses to accept responsibility, that’s essentially irrelevant because he’s being overridden by the American people. People didn’t complain when the Obama administration took credit for the 5.7 percent GDP in Q4, 2009.

Politically speaking, President Obama took ownership of the economy at that point. When the economy either dips into recession a second time or growth stagnates, which it’s doing right now, will the Obama administration argue that the second recession is President Bush’s fault?

We don’t have to worry about the public. They’ll, correctly, assign the blame to the Obama administration’s anti-growth policies. The simple fact is that President Obama’s policies have catered to public employee unions. It’s been hostile to the job creators. That’s why $2,000,000,000,000 of private capital has been sitting on the sidelines for a few months. That’s why the Obama administration can’t talk about anything except green shoots and jobs saved.

This administration can’t point to robust private sector growth. This administration can’t point to job growth outside the Beltway. This administration can’t talk about unquestioned economic successes.

Think about it: This administration can’t talk about any widespread economic success that their policies have brought to the American people. President Obama is the only president in the last 40 years that that can be said about.

The bottom line is this: There’s no arguing that President Bush’s policies contributed to the economy’s decline, although there’s plenty of blame to go around. The American people accept and know that. They also know that President Obama promised to fixed what ailed the American economy.

That’s why his whining about the economy’s struggles are all President fault has worn out its welcome. Whether the economy takes a second dip into recession or just barely avoids it, there’s no question that President Obama’s policies brought about the current downturn/recession.

Technorati Tags: Economy, Recession, GDP, Stimulus, President Obama, Obamacare, Unemployment, Speaker Pelosi, Cap And Trade, Card Check, Democrats, President Bush, Republicans, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Here’s a partial transcript of the video:

Frank 2003: I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and, even then, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.
Frank 2005: This is not the dot com situation…but you’re not going to see the collapse that people talk about when they talk about a bubble.
Frank 2006: Fundamentally, I don’t think there’s a crisis.
Frank 2008: I don’t think that Fannie and Freddie are financially insolvent. I don’t think that they need large bailouts.
Frank 2008: We had a degree of meltdown that very few people foresaw.

Shift to interview with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: Do you think that we’ll still need a Fannie and a Freddie?
FRANK: Oh absolutely not. I think that they should be abolished.

Now back to Rep. Frank:

REP. FRANK: So how can it be my fault that no bill passed from 1995 through 2006?
FRANK: No you interrupted me. What did I say that was inaccurate? Quote me correctly. I never said I wanted you to trust me.

I haven’t seen any polling on the Bielat-Frank race so I won’t predict the race’s outcome but the externals are horrible for Frank. He’s obviously feeling the heat from his financial sector supporters. With them, it isn’t about ideology. It’s about whether or not they’re making money.

Barney Frank has been one of the most arrogant legislators in DC. Prior to the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, supporters didn’t seem to mind because he helped them make money. Now that they aren’t making money, his arrogance might be wearing thin.

I’m still taking the an ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ attitude to this race but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t love the thought of Frank getting ousted. Getting rid of Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the Democrat majorities in the House, Senate would make for a glorious Tuesday night this November.

Honestly, I’d settle for Speaker-Elect Boehner and Sen.-Elect Angle. Then again, I’d love seeing as many Corruptocrats lose that night.

Technorati Tags: TARP, Bailouts, Barney Frank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Housing Bubble, Banks, Insolvency, Special Interests, Corruption, Democrats, Sean Bielat, Scott Brown, Republicans, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The things that he’s differed with them on aren’t tiny items, either. The people were skeptical of President Obama’s stimulus but they were willing to give it a chance to succeed. That grace period expired awhile back. The American people can plainly see that President Obama’s stimulus package failed miserably.

In Q4 of 2009, the economy grew by a 5.7 annual rate, a strong showing until you looked underneath the numbers. Once the effect of the Cash for Clunkers program and the mortgage deal expired the stimulus spending spree ubsided, the economy grew by 3.7 percent in Q1 of 2010. The Q2 numbers were anemic to begin with and they’ve gotten revised downward since.

In other words, the economy is tanking again because President Obama’s economic policies have failed.

Even with a favorable sampling of Democrats, President Obama’s rating on the economy is terrible:

If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approving or disapproving of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?
Approve- 41 percent
Disapprove- 56 percent

President Obama can talk all he wants about how Democrats pulled the car out of the proverbial ditch but the American people, many of whom are unemployed or in danger of losing their homes, aren’t buying his schtick. Don’t expect that to change between now and Election Day.

UPDATE: Change that last sentence. It just got worse:

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 500,000 in the week ended August 14, the highest since mid-November, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast claims slipping to 476,000 from the previously reported 484,000 the prior week, which was revised up to 488,000 in Thursday’s report.

When will we declare that ARRA and Obamanomics has failed? Better yet, when was the last time this administration touted all the private sector jobs ARRA saved? Correction: Will there be a first time that this administration will be honestly able to say that their policies created or saved private sector jobs? I’m betting that won’t happen but anything’s possible.

This November, voters will reject Obama’s policies in an historic election. Republicans will then install Paul Ryan as House Budget Committee chairman & Dave Camp as Ways and Means Committee Chairman, thereby restoring sanity to this nation’s budget and tax policies.

Technorati Tags: Stimulus, Unemployment, Deficits, Economy, President Obama, Saved Or Created, Cash For Clunkers, Bailouts, Unions, Public Sector, Democrats, Paul Ryan, Fiscal Sanity, Dave Camp, Republicans, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

John Boehner wants a lot of people to lose their jobs.

We were awfully surprised to hear Rep. Boehner come out for killing jobs en masse in his own state and district by stopping the Recovery Act on last Sunday’s news shows.

This shows what this administration thinks of Ohio residents. This administration apparently thinks that if they say something, that people automatically believe it. They don’t.

The good news is that Leader Boehner didn’t waste time taking Bernstein to task:

“The people of my district are looking at President Obama’s ‘stimulus’ policies and asking a simple question: where are the jobs?,” Boehner said in the release. “The fact is, the president’s ‘stimulus’ spending spree is not delivering the results he promised it would, whether you’re looking in Ohio or anywhere else in America.”

“A nation in our fiscal condition should be spending less, not more,” he said, decrying Democrats’ call to end tax cuts enacted under President George Bush that Boehner said would amount to a tax hike on 50 percent of small businesses in America.

“I hope Vice President Biden’s economist today will provide the people of the Eighth Congressional District with an explanation of how raising taxes on small businesses will do anything but further hinder job creation in Ohio and across the country,” he said.

I wouldn’t expect Mr. Bernstein to respond directly to Leader Boehner’s shot about the Democrats’ failure to create new jobs.

While we’re on the subject of jobs, it’s a good time to ask why this administration seems to put a high priority on saving public employee union jobs while putting such a low priority on creating new private sector jobs. If this administration doesn’t put a high priority on shifting their focus from saving AFSCME and NEA jobs to creating tons of high tech manufacturing jobs, unemployment will stay at 9 percent. It’s just that simple.

Frankly, the American people don’t care about the jobs that are being saved. They’re worried about losing their homes and/or their jobs. The best way to put their mids at ease is to adopt pro-growth policies that invite investment, policies that make sense to put a job creator’s money at risk.

That isn’t happening right now. That’s why the administration has to cling to the saved jobs meme.

Technorati Tags: Economy, Stimulus, President Obama, Jared Bernstein, Unemployment, Jobs Saved, Unions, AFSCME, NEA, Democrats, John Boehner, Job Growth, Capitalism, GOP, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The bill the Senate passed last week is similar to the stimulus program that was supposed to spur long-term growth but had only a small, short-term effect and wound up mostly helping public employees and contractors. It directs money to Democratic constituencies, not the public at large.

This is the basic problem with the government’s “recovery” efforts. They are redistributions of wealth that don’t stimulate the broader economy. Meanwhile, other Washington policies are discouraging private investment and business expansion. The economy sputters along while Washington Democrats dole out cash to their friends.

The NHUL is exactly right. This isn’t about jumpstarting the economy. It’s never been about jumpstarting the economy. The stimulus bill was mostly directed at the governing class, not the private sector. Specifically, it’s directed at the public employee unions.

The problem with that is that there aren’t enough public employee to create a demand in other sections of the economy. I don’t doubt the administration’s claims that they’re seeing green shoots in the economy. That’s what I’d expect from an economic plan that doesn’t positively change economic behavior across multiple sections of the economy.

When the right economic plan is put in place, people should see most of the sectors getting going, either in succession or simultaneously. You shouldn’t have to hunt for proof, at least not month after month, quarter after quarter.

There’s another reason for states to be worried about this newest round of bailouts/stimulus. I just spoke with a retired state legislator who said that the new round of bailouts come with maintenance of service agreements attached. The statement that jumped out at me was when this retired state legislator said that “this money doesn’t come with strings attached. It comes with cables attached.”

Without this bailout, states would be forced to deal with economic reality. They’d have to actually set responsible priorities. With the bailout, they can keep travelling down the same irresponsible fiscal path that’s gotten them in trouble.

It’s time that states like California, Michigan and New York dealt with economic reality. It’s time that the federal government got out of the business of bailing out states who’ve given extravagant pensions to public employees.

Until we get a Republican majority in Congress, states will continue getting bailouts. That’s in nobody’s best interests.

Technorati Tags: Bailouts, Stimulus, Economy, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, California, Michigan, New York, Unions, Democrats, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

In the opening voiceover, ominous music plays while the announcer briefly references “oil being pumped directly…possibility of a double dip recession, illegal immigration, wage two wars that we’re fighting…” It then cuts away to his fundraiser for Barbara Boxer, “mob banker Giannoulias” before showing him hitting the links.

It’s bad enough when Chris Matthews says “When will see him actually do something?” What’s most damaging is Chris the final screen, though. It simply says “Mr. President, If you had actually created more American jobs, you wouldn’t have to spend so much time trying to save Democrat senators’ jobs.”

It’s an effective ad that will rock Democrats because it plays into the image that President Obama has created that he isn’t that interested in the day-to-day governance of the nation. What he’s shown the American people is that his ideological playlist is his only priority until he’s forced to address the issues that matter most to people.

President Obama hasn’t shown the least bit of attention to the routine duties of the office. For that matter, he’s refused to consider the possibility that his policies are failures. His narcisissism won’t let him consider the fact that he’s wrong.

The American people don’t have that difficulty. They’re seeing that he’s being exposed as underqualified for the job. They’re seeing that he’s far better at talking than he is at governing.

There was great enthusiasm for President Obama’s agenda when congressional Democrats took up his ideological agenda. They spent our money with glee as they paid off their political allies in the public employee unions with the stimulus money. Many Democrats willingly sacrificed their political careers for helping liberals achieve their Holy Grail moment of passing massive tax increases…I mean, passing universal health care.

It’s no secret that this is the most ideological-driven administration in history. Likewise, people know that this Congress, especially with Speaker Pelosi running the House, is highly ideological, too. Together, they’ve made a mess of things.

BTW, when President Obama shot his mouth off that he wasn’t going to give Republicans the keys back after he’d supposedly pulled the car out of the ditch, GOP activists and independents alike laughed.

First, President Obama didn’t steer the car back to the blacktop. His policies are disastrous. Second, they’re not his keys. The keys belong to the American people and they’re fixing on telling this arrogant, narcissistic president that they’re rejecting his policies.

The NRSC’s ad illustrated just how disengaged this president is. This one’s gonna hurt.

Technorati Tags: Campaigns, Governance, Economy, Recession, Unemployment, Stimulus, Obamacare, Unions, President Obama, Fundraising, Democrats, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Mr. Ryan has become the Republican Party’s poster child for new ideas thanks to his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” a plan for a major overhaul of federal spending and taxes. News media coverage has been overwhelmingly favorable; on Monday, The Washington Post put a glowing profile of Mr. Ryan on its front page, portraying him as the G.O.P.’s fiscal conscience. He’s often described with phrases like “intellectually audacious.”

But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.

Mr. Ryan’s plan calls for steep cuts in both spending and taxes. He’d have you believe that the combined effect would be much lower budget deficits, and, according to that Washington Post report, he speaks about deficits “in apocalyptic terms.” And The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: “The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.”

But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

First things first. The last I looked, the 1990s, which Krugman now writes derisively about, was a time when John Kasich and Bill Clinton cut spending, cut taxes and grew surpluses.

That’s the model that Paul Ryan is following with a notable exception. Paul Ryan actually wants to deal with entitlement spending, which should be viewed in apocalyptic terms.

Unfortunately, in Krugman’s rose-colored world, the failed stimulus wasn’t big enough.

Let’s look at Krugman’s perspective from a different angle. What Mr. Krugman is arguing is that giving capitalists an incentive to put their capital at risk and that cutting spending to rational levels will produce the same deficits as President Obama’s plan.

This isn’t just an insult to our intelligence, it’s an insight into the mind of an elitist. Mr. Krugman thinks that he can say anything and have people believe him. When Mr. Krugman stopped caring about economic accuracy and became interested in being the Insane Left’s political hack on all things economic, he lost his credibility.

The shameful thing is that he hasn’t figured out that he isn’t credible anymore, that people are ridiculing him instead. It’s a shame because he used to be a credible economist at one time.

Technorati Tags: Paul Ryan, John Kasich, Bill Clinton, Capitalism, Surpluses, Tax Cuts, Spending Cuts, Capitalism, Paul Krugman, President Obama, Socialism, Deficits, Unemployment, Democrats

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

KELLY: How significant is this victory?
CUCCINELLI: It is very significant for a number of reasons. One, it allows us to go forward on the merits of the health care lawsuit. That’s critical, both in terms of how long it will take to resolve this conflict and because we get to the merits. We get to the question of whether the commerce clause and the taxing power can support this legislation that Congress and the President have passed, which we and over twenty other states have said is unconstitutional.
KELLY: You know the Obama administration has responded to the loss by essentially downplaying it, saying that they are confident that this law will be found constitutional and adding that this challenge and other challenges like it are an attempt to settle a political dispute, basically saying it’s sour grapes because this law got passed and it played out fairly and folks should just have to live with it. Your response to that?
CUCCINELLI: You know, when I was a Republican legislator, I opposed Virginia participating in No Child Left Behind, a Republican president’s proposal. When this bill came through, I was the attorney general and I have an obligation to protect the Constitution and the statutes of Virginia. That’s what we’re doing with this case. They have violated the Constitution. It’s my duty to take it on and I think we’re likely to prevail. There’s no guarantees when it’s unprecedented but in the ruling yesterday, the judge said, whether it’s found unconstitutional or not, that under both the Commerce Clause jurisprudence and the taxing power law that exists today, this bill is out beyond the limits of both of them. So if it’s found to be constitutional, it will be the new outer limit of federal power and I would tell you it would essentially be the end of federalism as we’ve known it for over 220 years in this country.
KELLY: You know, if this judge, who was a George Bush appointee, rules in your favor, this will obviously go up on appeal and possibly will wind up and likely will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the judge, it really does raise unprecedented issues about government power and what the Congress can do and how far into our personal lives they can and cannot reach.
The reason this is so unusual, this health care bill in general, and the individual mandate in specific that you challenged, is because, for the first time ever, they are essentially penalizing, taxing, however way you want to put it, someone sitting in their own house and not doing anything. That’s essentially makes this so extraordinary, correct?
CUCCINELLI: That’s absolutely right. they’re trying to treat doing nothing as economic activity. That has never, ever been done before. In fact, King George III and his parliament recognized that they couldn’t do it but this congress and this president don’t recognize that the Constitution restrains them from that opportunity.
KELLY: You know, it’s not just Virginia that’s challenging this law. We’re seeing more and more states weigh in, including 20 states that have an action going in Florida based on other grounds. If this ruling is upheld by the Fourth Cicuit Court of Appeals and perhaps by the Supreme Court eventually, what does it do? What is the practical effect? Is health care gone?
CUCCINELLI: Well, first of all, in that question, let’s not talk about it as health care. This case is about liberty, not health care. The bill is about health care but the violation of the Constitution would take place if they were ordering you to buy Chevrolets. It’s the same thing. But this bill does not have what’s called a severability clause. You can’t sever out one part that’s unconstitutional and keep the rest. That means that if the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional, as Virginia says it is, the whole bill falls. The whole thing.
KELLY: WOW. Which is why you’re going to see the Obama administration fight vigorously to try to get a favorable ruling as this case goes forward because now, the judge has just basically given you the green light to litigate the case.

Thanks to this interview, we now have great insight into Judge Hudson’s ruling.

First, we know from this interview that “this bill is out beyond the limits of” the “Commerce Clause jurisprudence” and “the taxing power law that exists today.” That’s asking SCOTUS to stretch those parts of the Constitution well beyond where they’ve ever before.

Next, we’ve found out that Gen. Cuccinelli is arguing his strongest point, that if they rule the individual mandate constitutional, they’re essentially saying that federalism and the Tenth Amendment don’t exist in any meaningful way anymore. Additionally, they’re saying that living is a) an economic activity and b) something that the federal government can regulate through the ICC.

A liberal idiot with a black robe might buy that last argument but sane justices won’t.

If Congress whines after this is struck down, I’ll have this simple response: If you want to eliminate the Tenth Amendment, then the only way to eliminate it is by repealing it with a different constitutional amendment.

Democrats consistently tell us that the ICC trumps the Tenth Amendment. It doesn’t. They wish it did because then their job would be easier.

Thanks to Megyn Kelly’s interview of Ken Cuccinelli, we now have a great insight into Virginia’s lawsuit against the individual mandate and whether they’re likely to win when SCOTUS finally decides this issue.

Technorati Tags: Lawsuit, Mandates, Commerce Clause, Tenth Amendment, Economic Activity, Regulation, Taxation, Constitution, Democrats, Ken Cuccinelli, Republicans, Interview, Media, Megyn Kelly

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Less than two years after leaving office, only 25% of Americans believe that if Republicans return to power in Congress their economic agenda will mean a return to former President Bush’s economic policies. 65% say that a Republican Congress will promote a “new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush’s policies.” Even Democrats and liberals are unconvinced that a Republican Congress means a return to Bushanomics. And moderates and Independents, the key swing blocs in all major policy debates, have completely divorced congressional Republicans from the economic philosophy and failed policies of President Bush.

Democrats have to do this because their ‘accomplishments’ aren’t popular, with the stimulus having failed, health care being seen as a massive federal power grab and cap and tax being seen for what it is: the biggest tax increase in American history.

Ultimately, the Democrats’ tactics will fail for 3 reasons: 1) Chris Christie’s spending habits don’t remind anyone of GWB’s spending habits, 2) Paul Ryan’s Roadmap doesn’t remind anyone of GWB’s economic policies and 3) the Democrats’ economic policies stink.

Let’s deal with these one at a time, starting with Chris Christie. Had GWB fought the Democrats over spending like Gov. Christie is doing, we’d now have John McCain as president and President Bush would have a 60 percent approval rating. Gov. Christie’s fiscal restraint is reinvigorating both conservative and unaffiliated voters. After watching President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid spend with reckless abandon, a jolt of Chris Christie is exactly what America was looking for.

Paul Ryan’s Roadmap and his detailed budgets don’t look like anything the Bush administration would’ve proposed. Clearly, Paul Ryan’s star shined brightest during the Health Care Summit held at Blair House. I certainly remember this exchange:

“This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.”

“The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion.”

“The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that’s really reserved for Social Security. So either we’re double-counting them or we don’t intend on paying those Social Security benefits.”

“The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets.”

“The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.”

“The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries.”

“Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare President Obama didn’t dare question Ryan’s analysis.

That’s the moment when everyone in the nation saw that Paul Ryan was the policy giant in the room and President Obama was in way over his head.

Finally, in order to villainize someone, you have to be able to show people that you aren’t worse. At this point, people thinking of whether they’d rather have GWB’s economic policies or President Obama’s economic policies think they both stink, though they’d likely prefer GWB’s policies simply because he wasn’t the reckless spender that President Obama is. GWB was ‘just’ an irresponsible spender.

Here’s an update to Greg Sargent’s post:

A Democratic aide points out that the polling memo also contains empirical evidence that if the public is persuaded that voting Republican would be a return to Bush policies, it has a dramatic impact on voter attitudes:

If Americans believe that conservatives are espousing a return to the same economic ideas as those of the former President, the dynamic of the debate turns on its head. In two separate split sample questions, we tested President Obama’s economic plan against a generic conservative economic plan. When the conservative plan failed to mention President Bush, it handily out-polled the President’s agenda. When President Bush was inserted in the question, the Obama agenda easily won. In one split-sample, the difference was 49-points, in the other it was 23-points.

This is particularly pronounced among independents, the memo shows. It’s more proof that Bush remains a potent issue, and explains the current Dem strategy.

The Democrats can surely gain ground on this…temporarily. The minute that Republicans announce their new governing document showing what their governing priorities are, the public will see that voting for Republicans isn’t voting for a return to President Bush’s economic policies.

The bottom line is this: Democrats can’t run on their accomplishments because none of them are popular. Democrats can’t run on having saved the economy because it’s still staggering.

The only thing they’ve got is fearmongering and lying, which I’m certain we’ll see lots of during the next 13 weeks.

Technorati Tags: Economy, President Obama, Obamacare, Stimulus, Cap And Tax, Unemployment, Recession, Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, Democrats, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Roadmap, Conservatism, President Bush, Republicans, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

From the start, President Obama made clear that recovery from a crisis of this magnitude would not come quickly and that the recovery would not follow a straight line.

Remember when President Obama visited Caterpillar HQ? Here’s what he said then:

“Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off,” Obama said today in Peoria.

When a major manufacturer starts rehiring people it’s laid off, isn’t that an indication that the economy is headed for a quick recovery? Karl Rove warned the admininistration that their predictions would hurt them:

Team Obama was winging it when it declared the stimulus would “save or create” 2.5 million, then three million, then 3.7 million, and then four million new jobs. These were arbitrary and erratic numbers, and they knew there’s no way to count “saved” jobs. Americans, being commonsensical, will focus on Mr. Obama’s promise to “create” jobs. It’s highly unlikely that more than 180,000 jobs will be created each month by the end of next year. The precise, state-by-state job numbers the administration used to sell the stimulus are likely to come back to haunt them as well.

The saved or created jobs figures can be whatever this administration wants them to be because it isn’t possible to track how many jobs were saved.

The economic rescue package that President Obama put in place was essential to turning the economy around. The combined effect of government actions taken over the past two years, the stimulus package, the stress tests and recapitalization of the banks, the restructuring of the American car industry and the many steps taken by the Federal Reserve, were extremely effective in stopping the freefall and restarting the economy.

How many consecutive months will we hear that the economic recovery has started without visible proof that it’s heading in the right direction? The recoveries I’ve lived through start slowly, then gain momentum. This recovery was government-induced, it’s started out slowly and now that the government money for Cash for Clunkers and other government handouts are fading into the history books, the economy is fading again.

Laura Brod had this to say about Geithner’s statements:

Once again this is an example of the Democrats and their penchant for revisionist history. President Obama sold to the American people that the bailouts were necessary to keep unemployment below 8%. When that proved to be untrue, he recalibrated his number to get Americans comfortable with the fact that a 10% unemployment rate is more realistic while he at the same time he tried to sell the idea to the American people that the stimulus worked.

The American people of all political persuasions don’t buy what the Obama Administration is selling. The economic predictions of Secreatary Geithner and the Obama Administration have not only been shown to be untrue, they have been shown to be off course. It would be great if President Obama and Secretary Geithner would at some point fall into the understanding that if they want real economic growth and sustained recovery, they have to cease with the centralization of power, ratchet back the spending, and let job creators create jobs without penalty or challenge.

When history is written by honest historians, this administration will be known as the administration that didn’t creat jobs or the incentives to create jobs. Instead, they’re creating incentives that keep job creators on the sidelines. Not surprisingly, that’s what job creators are doing.

What the economy needs is a sharp shift away from Obamanomics. It’s failed because its policies bet against human nature. Obamanomics appears to be based on betting that companies will invest when ROI is questionable, when labor costs are unknown and possibly expensive and when this administration’s competence is questioned.

In one respect, I feel sorry for Geithner in that he’s forced to put a rosy face on a calamitous economic blueprint. That alone should be considered torture under the Geneva Convention.

Technorati Tags: Economy, Recession, Unemployment, Stimulus, President Obama, Tim Geithner, Health Care, Cap And Trade, Cash For Clunkers, Democrats, Caterpillar, Jim Owens, Laura Brod, Capitalism, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

A judge in Virginia appears to disagree with Rep. Stark:

A judge on Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state’s lawsuit which argues the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional, allowing the challenge to go forward.

It’s time that we sent a message to arrogant legislators that there is a price to be paid for thinking that they can do whatever they want. This judge obviously thinks that there’s a Tenth Amendment argument to be made against Obamacare.

Pete Stark isn’t fit to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. His grasp of the Constitution is nonexistent, as is his respect for his constituents. His arrogance prevents him from being a public servant.

In short, Stark thinks he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. It’s time that his constituents told him otherwise. He’s the embodiment of all that’s wrong with Washington.

Technorati Tags: Pete Stark, Arrogance, Obamacare, President Obama, Democrats, Tenth Amendment, Constitution, Virginia Lawsuit, Henry Hudson, Rocket Docket, States Rights, Conservatism

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard transcribed the econ lesson in this post. I agree with Noel when he said that Matthews was asking gotcha questions in hopes of getting Congressman Ryan to say something to hang around Republicans’ necks this fall. That didn’t happen. Instead, Congressman Ryan schooled Matthews on how to reduce the deficit. Here’s the key exchange in the interview:

MATTHEWS: Name a major piece of the 1.4 trillion to 1.7 trillion. No, just take –

RYAN: OK.

MATTHEWS: — just take a chunk out that 1.4 trillion by getting rid of a big program or good expenditure that people now watching can understand.

RYAN: I would rescind the unspent stimulus funds. I would rescind all the TARP funds that aren’t spent. I would do a federal hiring freeze and pay freeze for the rest of the year. And I would go back and cut discretionary spending back to ‘08 levels and freeze that spending going forward.

Now, you and I can get into a debate about Keynesian economics, whether it worked or didn’t. I don’t think it did. We increased domestic discretionary last year by 84 percent. I don’t think we should continue to build that kind of a base. Let`s go back and cut discretionary spending back to `08 levels.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: Rescind stimulus, rescind TARP and do a federal hiring and pay freeze. Those are just a few ideas that add up to $1.3 trillion right there.

Prior to this exchange, Matthews tried saying that Republicans just talked smart about reducing the deficit, implying that they weren’t serious about it. Here’s that exchange:

MATTHEWS: So, in other words, all this bitching about the deficit doesn’t mean squat, because you won’t do either, raise taxes or reduce spending.

RYAN: Let me answer it, then.

MATTHEWS: Neither one.

RYAN: This year, Congress isn’t even doing a budget, but, last year, when we did a budget, I brought a budget to the floor that specifically cut $4.8 trillion of spending out of the budget and paid for all of these tax cuts and debt reduction. Two months ago, we put out $1.3 trillion in very specifically listed and enumerated spending cuts. So, I can go on with you on cuts. I can show you all the kinds of cuts.

MATTHEWS: But that’s one-three hundredth (ph) of the deficit. That’s 0.3 of 1 percent you’ve talked about.

Matthews, like usual, is talking without engaging his brain. He couldn’t have been listening if he thinks that a 1-year spending cut of $1.3 trillion (that’s just $170 billion less than this year’s projected deficit.) equals a tiny fraction of this year’s deficit. It’s just short of 90 percent of the FY2010 deficit.

Based on the scowl on Chris Matthews’ face both before and after he asked Congressman Ryan, it’s clear that he didn’t like it that Congressman Ryan had essentially made him look like the blowhard he is.

Had Rep. Ryan’s econ lesson stopped there, I would’ve been happy. Unfortunately for Matthews, Ryan continued the econ lesson in this exchange:

RYAN: No, no. You have to understand, Chris, 75 percent of those people who pay that tax rate are small businesses who file as individuals, not corporations. That’s the problem with this economic argument, Chris, is when you think you’re just taxing rich people like Bill Gates, what you’re end up doing is you`re hitting successful small businesses. When we tax our employers more than our foreign competitors tax theirs, they get our jobs and we lose in global competition.

So, we ought to be keeping our eye in economic growth and job creation, what`s necessary to do, and that means low tax rates on businesses and small businesses in certainty. We have a whole new tax on certainty that’s hurting economic growth. We need to give taxpayers certainty that they’re not going to have a huge wave of tax increases in 2011 and then another in 2013.

This observation is what Chris Matthews didn’t want to hear:

When we tax our employers more than our foreign competitors tax theirs, they get our jobs and we lose in global competition.

The same principle applies to interstate competition, too. If businesses can get a better deal, whether it’s in another state or another country, they’ll accept it. They’re in business to make money. PERIOD. If the cost of manufacturing is higher in the United States than it is in South Korea, the jobs get shipped overseas. If the cost of manufacturing is higher in Minnesota than it is in South Dakota, the jobs get moved to South Dakota.

That’s why it’s important to extend the Bush tax cuts and repeal Obamacare. Those things alone drive the cost of doing business through the roof. If I owned a business, I certainly wouldn’t be expanding my business right now.

Chris Matthews isn’t interested in that, though. He’s only interested in playing partisan gotcha journalism. For all his talk about wanting a better America, Chris Matthews is acting like he’s only interested in a better America if it’s his version of America.

Thankfully, Paul Ryan kept his composure, answered the questions specifically, fully and calmly. Better yet, he didn’t just answer directly, he taught Matthews an econ lesson on TV by perhaps thousands of people.

This exchange is pure fiction:

MATTHEWS: Congressman Crowley, let me ask you. What are the Democrats going to do about the deficit? Anything?

REP. JOSEPH CROWLEY (D-NY), WAYS AND MEANS CMTE.: Well, I did notice there, though, Chris, was he didn`t mention at all his plan to privatize Social Security. Again, going back to the same old Bush agenda, the failed Bush agenda, the American people rejected in the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate.

(INAUDIBLE) as it may, I think Democrats have really taken steps to be more responsible. We’re working under a PAYGO system, pay as you go. And albeit there are some items that are cut off from that portion of it, we are attempting to get back a system that was proven to get our budgets in order to really, under the Clinton administration –

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CROWLEY: really just, really bring back more fiscally responsible Congress, more responsible government. It has worked in the past. Chris, I think it will work in the future. The president has said he wants to cut this deficit in half and I want to help him do that.

The Democrats’ PAYGO system is a joke. Last week, when Republicans insisted on paying for extending unemployment benefits, Democrats said no. That wasn’t the first time they’d ignored the law they passed this spring. It’s insulting to hear Crowley and Matthews talk about President Obama in terms of fiscal responsibility as though he’d shown as much fiscal responsibility as President Clinton.

This is a big reason why people are rejecting Democrats. They’re tired of Democrats insulting their intelligence. They’re tired of being treated like second class citizens who need the government to take care of them.

I doubt that Democrats will learn anything from Paul Ryan’s econ lesson because, with them, it isn’t about the economy. It’s about their ideology-driven world vision. They’ve spent the past 18 months pushing through their ideology wish list. This November, the American people will vote to put that to a screeching stop.

Technorati Tags: Economy, Paul Ryan, Tax Cuts, Small Businesses, Job Creation, Spending, Deficit Reduction, Republicans, Chris Matthews, Gotcha Journalism, MSNBC, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

In what could be deemed an act of war against the sovereign borders of the United States, Mexican drug cartels have seized control of at least two American ranches inside the U.S. territory near Laredo, Texas.

Two sources inside the Laredo Police Department confirmed the incident is unfolding and they would continue to coordinate with U.S. Border Patrol today. “We consider this an act of war,” said one police officer on the ground near the scene. There is a news blackout of this incident at this time and the sources inside Laredo PD spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Word broke late last night that Laredo police have requested help from the federal government regarding the incursion by the Los Zetas. It appears that the ranch owners have escaped without incident but their ranches remain in the hands of the blood thirsty cartels.

The situation in Laredo is both intense and fluid. It’s times like this when a real commander-in-chief is missed the most.

President Obama’s passive stance towards border security has emboldened the drug cartel’s terrorists/mercenaries. Had he taken this issue seriously rather than just playing amnesty politics with it, he might’ve sent a serious National Guard/DEA presence to the region to not just prevent their violent attacks but to go on the offensive against the cartels.

Obama’s border security policy is summed up in 1 word: A-P-P-E-A-S-E-M-E-N-T. He’s done nothing to tell the drug cartels that are terrorizing the Tuscon Corridor or downtown Phoenix that they’ll pay a heavy price in blood, armaments and territory for each of their attacks.

If we had a real commander-in-chief who’s primary interest was protecting U.S. citizens instead of playing election politics, things might not have even escalated to this level. If the cartels suffered substantial damage because the DEA and other U.S. security assets were on the offensive against them, the cartel’s capabilities likely would’ve been seriously degraded.

This is President Obama’s first national security crisis. If he doesn’t pass this test with high marks, he can kiss a second term good bye. The American won’t re-elect a president whose economic policies have led to a spike in unemployment and whose national security policies are best described as appeasement. To oldtimers like me, President Obama’s and DHS Secretary Napolitano’s national security policies are looking too much like the disastrous policies of Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

That’s almost as scary a thought as dealing with a Mexican drug and human traffickers.

Technorati Tags: Crisis, National Security, Act Of War, Drug Cartels, Invasion, Laredo, TX, President Obama, Janet Napolitano, Appeasement, Jimmy Carter, Democrats, Election 2012

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely Voters prefer free markets over a government managed economy. Just 14% think a government managed economy is better while 11% are not sure. These figures have changed little since December.

Polling released earlier this week showed that Americans overwhelmingly believe that more competition and less regulation is better for the economy than more regulation and less competition.

Not surprisingly, America’s Political Class is far less enamored with the virtues of a free market. In fact, Political Class voters narrowly prefer a government managed economy over free markets by a 44% to 37% margin. However, among Mainstream voters, 90% prefer the free market.

There’s a simple reason for that: people see their decisionmaking as a personal matter. More often than not, they trust their decisionmaking over Washington’s decisionmaking.

What elitists haven’t figured out is that they aren’t liked because their arrogance is offputting. It’s easy for elitists to ‘accept’ a top-down control economy because they’re the ones that get to make the decisions. In their format, they retain their freedom to make decisions.

Likewise, in a liberty-oriented system, the people the elitists look down might make a great decision, thereby making the elitists look bad. Elitists can’t stand the thought of that.

The ‘ruling class’ is fighting a losing fight. They’re telling people who want to make their own decisions that they know better. Good luck winning that fight.

Technorati Tags: Polling, Free Markets, Liberty, Conservatism, Economics, Control Economies, Elitism, John Edwards, Two Americas, Socialism, Serfdom, Liberalism

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Which explains why Jim Clyburn held his strongest criticism for conservative activist and blogger Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart released the edited video Monday. He told FOX he obtained the video from an “individual in Georgia.” However, the shorter portions of the video only portrayed Sherrod in a negative light.

“This guy is so mean. Mean or sick,” Clyburn said of Breitbart. “I know what point he’s trying to make. That’s how idiotic he is.”

It’s true that Ms. Sherrod helped the Spooners keep their farm, which is the most important thing she could do. Still, that doesn’t make her a saint. Ms. Sherrod didn’t hesitate in bashing FNC in an interview with Media Matters even though FNC showed the proper restraint with the story, as evidenced by Sr. VP Michael Clemente’s email directive:

After a news meeting Monday afternoon, an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: “Let’s take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let’s make sure we do this right.”

Clyburn’s comments about Andrew Breitbart aren’t warranted, either. As he said in his interview with Sean Hannity, the video that he posted on Big Government highlighted the bad behavior of those attending NAACP’s banquet. It wasn’t a statement about Ms. Sherrod.

Rep. Clyburn can yap all he wants but his diatribe is scripted. It fits this week’s Democrats’ script perfectly. History proves that the Democrats can’t thrive without a boogeyman. Newt Gingrich was the first post-Housecleaning villain. The next liberal boogeyman was Dick Armey, followed by Tom DeLay.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats can’t compete on the battlefield of ideas. Clyburn’s diatribe indicates that Democrats are worried about this year’s elections. I don’t think Clyburn or Pelosi understand the level of people’s frustration with government. I don’t think they understand how livid people are with the bills Congress has passed, especially the finreg bill, health care and the stimulus.

The Democrat leadership’s strategy is to run on those bills. This November, they’ll find out just how upset America is with their agenda.

Technorati Tags: Racism, James Clyburn, Shirley Sherrod, Democrats, Michael Clemente, Fox News, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Republicans, Andrew Breitbart, New Media, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.

“I think they should but they won’t. They intended exactly what they did. They were looking for the result they got yesterday,” she said of Fox. “I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

Clearly, Ms. Sherrod is a bitter partisan. While it’s true that some people owed her an apology, let’s not think that we should nominate Ms. Sherrod for sainthood. There’s still alot of filth and hostility inside her.

During the second panel on Special Report, host Bret Baier addressed Ms. Sherrod’s vitriolic statement:

“We have invited Ms. Sherrod onto Fox News many times. She talked in an interview with Media Matters, and I don’t often quote Media Matters on this show but here’s what she told them:

“They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

Well, Ms. Sherrod, that is just not true. It’s not true.

Immediately after making that statement, Baier asked Charles Krauthammer for his opinion. Here’s what Charles said:

She was a victim but that doesn’t entitle her to victimize others and to use these kinds of attacks. She’s wrong and even though she is a person who needs restitution on the part of those who wronged her, this is not something that anyone can endorse and again this is part of this cycle which really ought to stop.

Summarizing this, it’s accurate to say that 1) Sherrod was victimized, mostly by the Obama administration and 2) Sherrod is a bitter partisan.

Let’s also set another thing straight, namely FNC’s getting Sherrod fired. This morning, Howard Kurtz looks into that in his media column. Here’s what he’s reporting:

But for all the chatter, some of it from Sherrod herself, that she was done in by Fox News, the network didn’t touch the story until her forced resignation was made public Monday evening, with the exception of brief comments by O’Reilly. After a news meeting Monday afternoon, an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: “Let’s take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let’s make sure we do this right.”

It’s apparent that FNC Sr. VP Clemente got it exactly right. Lost in all of the finger-pointing is this email directive, which mandated getting confirmation before running with the story.

Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert faced off with Andrew Breitbart on ABC’s GMA with Stephanopolous, making this statement:

Eric Boehlert of the liberal advocacy group Media Matters told George Stephanopoulos: “Andrew had no idea what the context of the comments were, but that didn’t stop him from launching the smear campaign.”

Mr. Boehlert wasn’t interested in listening to Mr. Breitbart. Mr. Breitbart said his contention wasn’t with with Sherrod but with the reaction from NAACP members attending a NAACP banquet. Breitbart said that the applause from the audience while Sherrod talked about not doing everything for a white farmer was proof that the NAACP had racists within its own ranks.

This fiasco has lots of spin. It’s wise to ignore anything from Eric Boehlert and/or Media Matters. They have their attack lines down pat and they’re repeating them without hesitation. I wouldn’t trust Mr. Boehlert as far as I could throw him if I had 2 broken arms and a bad back.

His only goal is pushing the progressives’ agenda. His responses don’t change when someone highlights the fact that his agenda is manufactured and totally ideology-based. Rather, he just keeps plowing ahead.

Let’s not annoint Ms. Sherrod for sainthood. Similarly, let’s not think that the spinmeisters from Media Matters are interested in the truth.

Technorati Tags: Media Bias, Media Matters, Eric Boehlert, Shirley Sherrod, Mea Culpa, Fox News, Bret Baier, Michael Clemente, Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, NAACP, Andrew Breitbart

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Ms. Spitz’s hatefulness is disgusting and disturbing. It’s irrelevant that she works by NPR. This is proof, along with Ezra Klein’s starting the group, that the erstwhile MSM employs hatemongers who viscerally hate people and who don’t think twice about shutting up those that report things differently. They don’t even think it’s a big deal:

The JournoList story is a great scoop for the Daily Caller, but doesn’t necessarily indicate a broader media conspiracy, says Mike Hoyt, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review.

“The Daily Caller has an interesting story that gives us insight into the way some journalists talk to each other, but I also think that reporters have a right to think and talk and be frank with each other,” says Mr. Hoyt. “At the same time, I think if they do it in a forum like this, they have to know some energetic reporter can report it, and that’s exactly what happened.”

In other words, Mr. Jonsson doesn’t think that the story is a big deal, that talking like that is perfectly acceptable in such a setting.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

That a UCLA law professor thinks it’s ok to pull FNC’s license is stunning enough. That he doesn’t appear to understand that cable networks don’t have broadcasting permits and that the FCC doesn’t regulate them is breathtaking.

JournoList’s hatefulness and lawlessness is instructive of who today’s media is. It’s time that people started investing in new media. We can’t tolerate the Agenda Media’s corruption because free societies can’t survive without the consistent flow of verifiable, accurate information.

Based on the information in these articles, there’s no reason why we should trust the information published by the Agenda Media.

Technorati Tags: Censorship, JournoList, Ezra Klein, Sarah Spitz, Daniel Davies, Michael Scherer, Journalists, Jonathan Zasloff, Attorney, FCC, First Amendment, Constitution, Mike Hoyt, Academia, Radicalism

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog