Trochilus Tales

Continuous Chest Compression CPR

2012-01-27T17:08:00.009-05:00

Here is the latest method called -- Continuous Chest Compression CPR -- which is a hands-on technique that can double a person's capacity to survive a cardiac arrest. Anyone can use to save a life of a person who may be having a heart attack. It does not require any mouth-to-mouth contact.

It is both easier to perform and is also more effective than the more common CPR technique, and you do not need to be certified in order to administer it.

It was developed by two physicians at the University of Arizona School of Medicine.

Learn more here, but the video itself is very explicit in illustrating exactly what you should do.

Please pass the information onto your friends and acquaintances.

Gingrich Lost To Santorum In NH: CNN/CBS Wrong

2012-01-14T14:45:00.052-05:00

UPDATE: -1/27/2012 Rick Santorum is still a few votes ahead of Newt Gingrich as of January 27, 2012. Newly corrected totals from local precincts reporting numbers to the NH Sec'y of State's Office have resulted in a photo finish with Santorum now up by 11 votes in the official tallies, with Santorum having obtained 23,432 votes, to 23,421 for Gingrich [end update].
* * * * *

Should you happen to be browsing through the placement numbers reported by the Sec'y of State of New Hampshire, you might well notice the final vote totals garnered by Rick Santorum ~~(23,408)~~ (23,432) and Newt Gingrich ~~(23,293)~~ (23,421).

Surprise!

In other words, Rick Santorum finished in fourth place, and Newt Gingrich finished behind him in fifth.

If you are surprised, you are likely not alone.

Because unless you looked at those actual results, you might well have been misled into believing the opposite -- such as has been reported consistently several major news-gathering organizations.

Let's take two of them, just as current examples -- CNN and CBS.

On election night, the two networks posted interactive "election returns" sites, and became widely relied upon sources of information on the election returns by the public at large. As the results trickled in from the 301 precincts around the Granite State, each of them posted updates, and they "automatically" updated the result tables. You didn't even have to refresh either url on most computers. It was done for you, as the returns came in and were posted. It really couldn't have been easier!

And yet, each of those major organizations ended up making the same exact mistake, and they have each failed to correct their error, fully four days later.

Interactive results that were reported by CNN and that are still linked there, and similar interactive results linked to and reported by CBS, both got the results and the order of finish wrong, and in the precisely the same way.

UPDATE: 01/27/2012 -- Between the two networks, only CNN updated once -- back on January 19th [Updated 9:31 a.m. EST, Jan 19, 2012] when Gingrich was slightly back on top on the partially corrected tally by a few votes. But the latest numbers from the New Hampshire Sec'y of State's Office, as of 01/27/2012, verified at 3:10 pm, clearly show Santorum defeating Gingrich by 11 votes, with Rick Santorum having received 23,432 votes, and Newt Gingrich having received 23,421 votes. [end update]

Both of those web-links set up to report the results remained live and active all throughout the next day, and as the "latest" numbers trickled in from the slower-reporting precincts, those latest numbers were posted at both of those sites. They were virtually identical, and they were both wrong.

In the "final" figures, which both CNN and CBS completed midday to early evening on Wednesday, January 11, 2012, when the last of the 301 precincts finally reported, they both had posted identical numerical and percentage results about the first several positions in the Republican Primary, each showing that Newt Gingrich, who they erroneously reported had received 23,411 votes, had beaten out Rick Santorum, who they erroneously reported had received the lesser total of 23,362 votes. The CNN site records this -- "Updated 1:59 p.m. EST, Jan 11, 2012" as their final correction. The CBS site records this -- "Last Updated at 5:05 PM ET" -- which was also posted on January 11, 2012 -- as their final update. UPDATE: 01/27/2012 -- Between the two networks, only CNN updated once -- back on January 19th when Gingrich was back up by a few votes. But the latest numbers from the Sec'y of State's Office clearly show Santorum defeating Gingrich by 11 votes. [end update]

Now, sometimes people and networks make mistakes. We posted placement results here in partial reliance on the belief that one of those two might have gotten incorrect numbers, but not both. We were wrong. We also had cautioned in our post that final results from the Sec'y of State would very likely alter the results. Therefore, we also posted a correction yesterday when we obtained better information.

The really egregious part of this is that it is now early evening on Saturday, January 14, 2012, and these two major newsgathering organizations each still have those erroneous numbers posted. I just checked, at 5:10 pm. Anyone going to either or both sites to gather reliable information, would be fooled into believing their bad numbers.

Are we to believe that the accurate order of finish is news that the networks simply do not believe is worth reporting, or even updating?

So what if Rick Santorum beat out Newt Gingrich for 4th place in New Hampshire, someone might ask? Would they ask the same question if the difference was between first and second place? Of course not!

But why does placement in fourth or fifth place matter?

Well, one reason is because both the results of early caucuses and primaries do get factored into the manner in which people evaluate the candidates further down the road. The earlier results are not dispositive in most peoples' minds, but they are certainly factors that can and I think should be taken into consideration, at least by informed voters.

Errors can also become the basis for faulty analysis by writers and other pundits, and, from the perspective of self interest on the part of the media outlet, an error might be compounded in a way that could inadvertently skew their reading of the process to their embarrassment.

For example, two out of the five "lessons" from the New Hampshire primary that CNN election analysts Paul Steinhauser and John Helton say voters should draw from their misreported results, related directly to that CNN placement error. Maybe they should rewrite the piece and call it "~~Five~~ *THREE* things we learned from the New Hampshire primary" . . . "Uhh, Okay, so maybe FOUR things . . . the last one being, do not rely on your own network as a valid source of election results from which to draw lessons!"

Those are just a few of the reasons major newsgathering organizations should not misrepresent election results. And when they do, they should quickly correct those errors.

So there you have it . . . Newt Gingrich actually came in 5th place in New Hampshire, not in 4th as has been widely reported. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, and it certainly doesn't seem to matter a bit to either CNN or CBS.

But I'll bet it matters to Rick Santorum's supporters!

And, I'll bet it might even matter to at least some of the Newt Gingrich supporters, if they had known the truth about how the people of New Hampshire really took to his campaigning tactics in the aftermath of his big defeat in the Iowa caucuses.

Finally, it might even matter to the folks down in South Carolina, who some polls suggest may be flirting with a Gingrich mini-revival, the way the people of Iowa did for a short period of time back in December, before putting it all in perspective.

Who knows, maybe those two networks are each not inclined to make the correction on purpose!

Why?

I can think of a few possibilities, but here's one.

Maybe they like the way Newt is trying to wreak revenge on front-runner Mitt Romney with anti-capitalist rhetoric that plays right into Obama's hands, and they don't want to print anything that would suggest that the Republican Primary voters in New Hampshire had rejected Gingrich's sustained attacks.

2012 NH Republican Primary: All Precincts Now In

2012-01-11T14:15:00.080-05:00

01/11/2012 Both CNN and CBS are showing complete numbers from the results of the 2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary, all 301 election precincts statewide having now reported.

UPDATE, 01/13/2012: The New Hampshire Sec'y of State has now posted new vote totals, prompting the need for us to include a few minor numerical and percentage adjustments here for most of the major candidates. As a result Newt Gingrich dropped to 5th place. The new totals also included results for those who were not on our major candidate list, including minor candidates, writes-in votes, "scattered" votes, and others. The overall result is minor numerical AND percentage adjustments from what we had previously written.

But the one big surprise was that with the recalculation of both the numerical and percentage adjustments, Newt Gingrich slipped down a notch to 5th place, below Rick Santorum.

The overall result is that Mitt Romney won with ~~97,532~~ 97,600 votes, or ~~39.77%~~ 39.3% of the total vote. In 2008, Romney got 75,675 votes. Thus, he increased his personal vote total this year, garnering ~~21,857~~ 21,925 more votes in 2012 than he did four years ago.

Of the votes shown at CBS (which includes the votes for all the candidates (including the 349 votes cast for Michelle Bachmann) a total of 245,213 people cast ballots for the seven primary candidates on the ballot. (UPDATE: Because of the new Sec'y of State numbers, the CBS and CNN numbers previously linked are now slightly incorrect. See the table below for the accurate numbers.)

There were no doubt a small handful of votes cast for others, including write-ins, but we will not know with absolute precision how many there were until the Sec'y of State posts the official results in a few days. However, given the "final" numbers we do have now, it is clear that 4,174 more people voted in this year's Republican primary, than cast ballots back in 2008. UPDATE, 01/13/2012: In addition to the votes listed below (which now includes a posting of Buddy Roemer's 950 votes), and, in addition, after also counting all the votes for Herman Cain (161), Karger (485), Johnson (181), write-ins for Obama (285), and a host of other lesser votes, and those listed as "scatter," it is clear there was a significant increase in the number of votes cast in the Republican primarythis year. The overall total of 248,289 votes cast in this 2012 Republican primary in New Hampshire, exceeded the 2008 total of 241,039 by 7,250 votes.

The statewide totals were as follows: (See new totals under UPDATE: below). Taking into account the"final" numbers showing that 248,289 people voted in the NH Republican Primary this year, here were the individual results, numerical and percentage.

Mitt Romney _____ 97,532 _ 39.77% ★

Ron Paul ________ 56,848 _ 23.18%

Jon Huntsman ____ 41,945 _ 17.10%

Newt Gingrich ____ 23,411 __ 9.54%

Rick Santorum ____ 23,362 __ 9.53%

Rick Perry ________ 1,766 ___ .72%

Michelle Bachmann __ 349 ___ .14%

UPDATE, 11/13/2012: Latest numbers from the New Hampshire Sec'y of State's Office, can be found here, containing a few adjustments to several candidates' totals.

As we noted above, the bad news is for Newt Gingrich. Looks like he came in 5th place (not 4th as originally thought) -- behind Rick Santorum.

The adjusted statewide rankings were as follows -- with ALL 248,289 votes cast included:

Mitt Romney _____ 97,600 _ 39.3% ★

Ron Paul ________ 56,872 _ 22.9%

Jon Huntsman ____ 41,783 _ 16.82%

Rick Santorum ____ 23,408 __ 9.43%

Newt Gingrich ____ 23,293 __ 9.38%

Rick Perry ________ 1,764 ___ .71%

Buddy Roemer _______ 950 ___.38%

Michelle Bachmann ___ 350 ___ .14%

Other ____________ 2,269 ___ .91%

★ Designates the winner.

Romney Wins Big In New Hampshire; Paul Is 2nd

2012-01-11T00:44:00.029-05:00

01/11/2012 Mitt Romney has scored a big win in the 2012 New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary yesterday evening, with the race having been called for him within minutes of the polls closing at 8:00 pm.

With 5% of precincts reportedly still unaccounted for, 95,669 votes were cast for the former Massachusetts Governor, representing 40% of the total ballots cast and reported. Four years ago in 2008, Mitt Romney only got 75,675 votes in New Hampshire in his second place finish. This year, therefore, he enjoyed a considerable percentage and numerical increase in the number of voters who cast ballots for him.

Well over 20,000 more voters turned out for Mitt this time around. Exact figures will be available as the last few precincts are reported.

As of 2:41 am CNN had posted numbers showing that, with 95% of precincts having reported, Romney had 95,669 votes for 40% of the total. Ron Paul was in second place with 55,455 votes (23%), and Jon Huntsman was in third place with 40,903 votes (17%). Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were in a close scramble for 4th place, each with about 10% of the vote. Governor Rick Perry of Texas, was only drawing around 1% of the vote.

In 2008, Romney came in second behind Senator John McCain, having garnered (per the Sec'y of State on 01/11) 75,675 votes out of the total of 241,039 votes cast.

With 5% still unreported, and 239,708 votes already having been reported last night, that suggests that there is a possibility of an additional twelve thousand votes that will be added to the total.

So clearly, posted claims that it looked like he would come "in at 37-38%, with about the same total number of votes as in 2008" were and are inaccurate.

It also looks like the Newt Gingrich effort to attack Romney over his work at Bain, was being perceived by New Hampshire voters as an effort aimed at revenge, and at least so far, it has backfired. Newt finished well back in the pack.

A more recent attention-getting gimmick by the former Fannie Mae adviser will apparently feature him making an appearance at a homeownership rally down in South Carolina along with House Democrat Leadership big, Congressman James Clyburn.

That event will be held this coming Thursday.

Tebow to Thomas In OT: Score!

2012-01-08T20:11:00.014-05:00

Denver . . . 29

Pittsburgh . . . 23

By 6 -- the minimum OT score now.

Denver Post -- The first play of overtime.

Unbelievable. Here is the NFL post . . . WOW!

(Via HotAir, here.

Tony Blankley: 1949 - 2012

2012-01-08T16:48:00.020-05:00

01/08/2012 Tony Blankley has died, just shy of sixty-three years old.* He had been battling of stomach cancer and passed away late Saturday, according to reports. Tony resided in Virginia and is survived by has wife and three children.

A naturalized American citizen, Tony was born in England and his parents moved to the United States (to California) in the years following World War II. Tony played a few roles as a child actor.

A conservative author and lawyer, he once was a prosecutor for ten years out in CA, served in a few distinguished stints in government in Washington, DC, including for the Reagan Administration, and later became the press secretary and an adviser to Speaker Gingrich.

Tony also served later as the editorial page editor for the Washington Times.

I always enjoyed reading Tony's take on events. He will be sorely missed.

*The initial year of birth we posted was incorrect. Tony was born January 21, 1949.

Didn't Amy Tell HIM?

2012-01-04T15:00:00.009-05:00

01/04/2012 Fresh from the Department of ADLADS (A Day Late & A Dollar Short) comes this bit of hilarity, an AP story, via ABC News.

Oh, man . . . I promise it will make your day:

Carter's Advice to Obama: Don't Alienate Voters

By GREG BLUESTEIN Associated Press
ATLANTA January 4, 2012 (AP)

Former President Jimmy Carter has some advice for Barack Obama as he gears up for the 2012 election: Don't alienate voters with controversial positions.

The Georgia Democrat told The Associated Press on Tuesday that just about everything he did alienated voters, from sealing a treaty to hand over the Panama Canal to establishing diplomatic ties with China.

Carter said: "If your main goal is to get re-elected, avoid a controversial subject as much as you can in the first term."

. . . . (more yucks in the original)

Signing Statements Redux; AP Has Your Back, BHO

2012-01-01T13:19:00.057-05:00

01/01/2012 While running for the Presidency four years ago, Barack Obama specifically pledged (when asked in early April of that year) that he would not employ the use of signing statements with legislation in order to get around Congressional mandates.

He strongly criticized then-President Bush for the use of signing statements, saying that the use of signing statements was extra-Constitutional on the part of the Bush Administration. And he pointed out that as a former professor of Constitutional Law, he knew better and would respect his proper constitutional role by refusing to employ the tactic to "do an end run around Congress."

Here was exactly how he put it on April 8, 2008, in response to being asked"

"When Congress offers you a bill do you promise not to use Presidential signing statements to get your way."

Said he, unequivocally, "Yes."

Following the applause and a few shouts of approval from the audience, he tapped the microphone to make sure it was on, and went in to full professorial mode, proceeding to give everyone a little civics lesson in the separation of powers, in the course of which he deeply criticized the Bush Administration for the use of signing statements, which he said had been done in violation of our Constitution.

"Let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue. Uhh, you know we got a, uhh, a government, uhh, designed by the founders so that they'red be checks and balances. You don't want a President who is too powerful, or a Congress that is too powerful, or Courts that's too powerful. Everybody's got their own role.

Congress's job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, is he's been saying, 'Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don't agree with this part, or I don't agree with that part. I'm going to choose to interpret it this way or that way.'

Uhh, That's not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he's going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.

All right?"

Setting aside for the moment his serious exaggeration about what President Bush had attempted to accomplish through the employment of signing statements, the fact remains that if Obama seriously believed that Bush-era signing statements were so fundamentally unconstitutional, there were remedies, including through the courts to challenge the Administration, remedial measures which the former "Con Law" professor never pursued, other than rhetorically.

Since becoming President, and in contravention of his views expressed before becoming President, Obama has continued to regularly employ the use of signing statements to attempt to stamp his administration's policy views on legislation passed by Congress.

Just yesterday, for example, he attached a lengthy and highly critical signing statement to the Defense authorization bill recently passed by both Houses of Congress, in which he voiced "serious reservations" over a few provisions, and in which he added that he would interpret and implement the new law as he saw fit.

Here are a few key provisions lifted from his statement:

. . .
"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
. . . . (my emphasis added)

The Associated Press, per reporter Julie Pace, chose to cover the story with as positive a spin as she could possibly muster, including by completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's campaign position from back in 2008.

From her story:

". . .
Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.
. . . ."

That statement is completely disingenuous, and it would be downright laughable, if it were not for the fact that this bill dealt with matters so fundamentally affecting our national security.

As can be seen from the video clip, above (and the transcription) neither the views expressed in that "signing statement" above, nor the AP representation of that specific 2008 commitment regarding signing statements, in any way harmonize with, or can be coordinated with the views expressed his 2008 position.

The AP just made that up.

But the President has little to be concerned about in this regard. As usual, the AP has his political back.

As Mel Brooks once (actually thrice) put it in another "historical" context, "It's good to be the King!"

Christmas Crossing, 1776

2011-12-25T13:06:00.024-05:00

Christmas Day marks an anniversary in our great American experiment, one that was a true turning point in our national fight for independence and self government, launched nearly 6 months after the Continental Congress had cast the final die for liberty in Philadelphia, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

A mere 235 years ago today, on Christmas Day night, December 25, 1776, in the face of a howling nor'easter snowstorm, the Virginia commander of a largely defeated and demoralized New England-based army, General George Washington, and his able officers led the consolidated remnants of the Continental Army -- 2,400 troops, 18 cannons, a number of horses, and other supplies -- in an audacious and surprise fording of the ice-swollen Delaware River at McKonkey's Ferry in Pennsylvania, a little over 8 miles north of the British cantonment at Trenton, a fortified encampment occupied at the time by widely-hated Hessian mercenaries.

The British occupiers had settled into several in a loose chain of strategic defensive locations across New Jersey for the winter, including at New Brunswick, Princeton, Trenton, as well as down in Bordentown and Mount Holly. The eventual target of the British forces, of course, was the American Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

Having succeeded in making that improbable Christmas crossing (the only successful one of three that were planned for that night), the cold and exhausted Americans, many of them without adequate footwear, marched south over night, and surprised the Hessian troops right in their Trenton encampment, decisively won the day, and then retreated back to the Pennsylvania side with critical captured stores, and as many as 1,000 prisoners.

At Trenton, following that quick and decisive action, General Washington reputedly remarked to one of his top aides:

"Major Wilkinson, this is a glorious day for our country."

It was the first field victory for the Continental Army after a string of stinging defeats in and around New York City, following the massive British troop occupation of New York in the summer of 1776. That string of setbacks had eventually precipitated a full-fledged retreat of the dwindling remainder of the American army across New Jersey on the heels of their defeat at Fort Lee.

They escaped into Pennsylvania via the Delaware River at Trenton in very early December. The British meanwhile had secured full control of New York City and the immediate environs, which they would hold throughout the remainder of the Revolutionary War.

Less than one week following his surprise victory at Trenton, and mindful that he was about to lose the lions' share of his American enlistments -- they were running out as of the beginning of January -- Washington and the Americans repeated their audacious crossing, this time at a few points along the freezing river on December 29th and 30th, after which they eventually set up defensive positions behind a stone bridge that crossed the Assunpink Creek, including heavy earthworks, all of which they knew would inevitably draw in a heavy British response from the New Brunswick and Princeton garrisons.

On the 31st of December, it was there in Trenton that first Gen'l Thomas Mifflin, and then Gen'l Washington himself, made strong personal appeals to the various regiments of enlistees who were about to head home, pleading with them to reenlist in the cause, and giving out generous bonuses. At first hesitating, most eventually responded positively.

Alerted to the renewed presence of the of American troops and artillary back in Trenton, Lord Charles Cornwallis had marched a massive force from New Brunswick down to Princeton, arriving there on New Year's Day. And then he moved onto to Trenton, where eventually a large force of 5,000 men under his command was to attempt to engage Washington's army in their defensive positions in the "Battle of the Assunpink Creek," or, "The Second Battle of Trenton.

That Christmas victory in Trenton had changed the mood, not only in the confidence of the American troops, but also of the various militia units, and even of the people in the countryside. The British force under Cornwallis was constantly attacked and harassed during their march to Trenton, by both Continental Army forces under Col. Edward Hand, and others near what is today Lawrenceville.

The British force eventually arrived in Trenton, above the bridge across the Assunpink on the afternoon of January 2nd. And after undertaking a series of unsuccessful attempts to cross, during which they took considerable casualties, they disengaged from that late afternoon attack for the remainder of the night. The determination was made to attack and cross the contested bridge at first light, mistakenly thinking that they would thereupon finally force the surrender of the trapped rebel army.

But stoking their fires and encampment late into the night as a diversion, Washington's Army held a council of war, and instead quietly mustered in the very early morning hours, and they took a back road out of the supposed "trap," a route that was unknown to the British forces. Aided by ground that had frozen hard, the American forces crept right around those massed British forces, including those Cornwallis had left as a rear guard along the main road north. Gen'l Washington's army marched north, even building a quick bridge over a stream for their artillery along the way through Quakerbridge, and on they marched the several miles to eventually engage and achieve victory in a surprise attack on the skeletal British forces remaining in the Princeton area the next morning.

At one point, Gen'l Washington had to take personal command of the battle action in the fields south of Princeton, during an engagement in which Gen'l Hugh Mercer, a close friend of Washington, was mortally wounded. At great personal risk, Washington rallied the faltering American troops, who finally succeeded in routing the British. Gen'l Sullivan, meanwhile, entered Princeton and forced the surrender of a small British force at Nassau Hall. The Americans had achieved a face to face field victory over British troops. The American forces gathered up more stores and supplies in Princeton, and then they all headed north, up through Rocky Hill, and out toward Morristown, while Cornwallis withdrew toward New Brunswick.

In a matter of a little more than a week, Gen'l Washington and his troops had defeated the British in three engagements, along or near the Delaware.

The big picture was that the Howe brothers' military strategy of patiently ending the "rebellion," by defeating the American force through attrition, and thereby reestablishing colonial control - essentially by default, had been exposed and defeated by Washington's Army. The British withdrew back toward New York, where they would subsequently mount an offensive by sea against Philadelphia the following year.

Eventually, of course, it would be the British forces who would be defeated by attrition, though it took several years.

Seven years later, in 1781, just following the Battle of Yorktown down on the Chesapeake, Lord Cornwallis was reputed to have honored the victorious General Washington at an officers event, held a few days following his surrender, with a toast in the following words:

"[T]he brightest garlands for your excellency will be gathered not from the shores of the Chesapeake but from the banks of the Delaware."

"Inherent Difficulties" in Tax Gimmick Backed By Obama & Senate

2011-12-19T14:44:00.023-05:00

12/19/2011 -- Ooooops, according to ABC News (ht Drudge), reported by Jake Tapper.

Here's the opener from Jake's ABC "Political Punch" posting:

"Two-Month Payroll Tax Holiday Passed By Senate, Pushed By President, Cannot Be Implemented Properly, Experts Say"

Officials from the policy-neutral National Payroll Reporting Consortium, Inc. have expressed concern to members of Congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and supported by President Obama cannot be implemented properly.

Pete Isberg, president of the NPRC today wrote to the key leaders of the relevant committees of the House and Senate, telling them that "insufficient lead time" to implement the complicated change mandated by the legislation means the two-month payroll tax holiday "could create substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees."
. . . .

And here is the ABC-linked letter from Peter Isberg of the "National Payroll Reporting Consortium." a politically neutral "non-profit trade association that does not take positions on policy."

UPDATE: Concurrence from the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors -- NAW, who have now written a letter (ht: Andrew Stiles at NRO here) to both the Speaker John Boehner and Senate President Harry Reid concurring with the conclusion of the National Payroll Reporting Consortium.

. . .
We are aware of the letter sent today to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees by the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, advising the Committee leaders of the “substantial problems, confusion and costs” that the proposed two-month extension of the reduced payroll tax rate would cause. In fact, the NPRC states that many payroll systems would simply not be able to make the programming changes that H.R. 3630 would require.

We concur with the conclusion of the NPRC on the logistical difficulties and costs that would result from enactment of H.R. 3630 as written.
. . . .

And, unlike the NPRC which does not comment on matters of policy, the NRW commented further on what they see as the undesirable policy aspects of the 2-month extension.

. . .
Moreover, the type of temporary and changing tax provisions that H.R. 3630 would impose would have an economic as well as a practical impact. A two-month extension of the current reduced payroll tax rate, with the implicit rise in that rate in the first quarter of 2011, would exacerbate and escalate the uncertainty about fiscal policies that has inhibited business activity and slowed economic recovery and job creation for the last several years.
. . . .

As just reported earlier today by The Hill, Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and two other Republican Senators (Richard Lugar, R-IN, and Dean Heller, R-NV) -- all three of whom who are up for reelection in 2012 -- are publicly urging the House to go along with the two-month Senate provision. This may now come as an embarrassment to them for precipitously jumping on their House colleagues.

What Didn't You Know and When?

2011-12-16T12:03:00.041-05:00

2/16/2011 -- The old lawyer's joke about avoiding a perjury rap while testifying under oath, is that one might well safely say something like this:

"I have no current recollection . . . [e.g., of ever having said or done any such thing.]"

The presumption, of course, is that there is a tiny possibility "it" happened, but that right now . . . well, you know, I just do not remember.

With respect to the demonstrably spotty memory of Jon Corzine, the former head of MF Global Holdings Ltd, from which $1.2 billion "mysteriously "disappeared, the Wall Street Journal sardonically suggests that perhaps the question investigators or others might more appropriately ask is:

"What didn't you know, and when didn't you know it?"

Here is a video mash-up of Jon Corzine's December 8th House Committee testimony (the full clip is posted here) which seems to underscore the point:

Ed Morrissey at HotAir notes how Jon Corzine, the former Democrat Governor of New Jersey -- and, as Ed helpfully reminded the also curiously forgetful Washington Post -- an announced and widely-touted mega-fundraising bundler for the 2012 Obama Presidential campaign is now ensnared in doubling down and re-testifying before Congress.

In doing so, Jon was, so to speak, taking a second bite of the apple, offering his "explanation" for what Terrence A. Duffy, the chief executive of CME Group, and the firm assigned to auditing MF Global, may have been thinking about when Duffy testified about what, to his knowledge, Jon was aware of and ordered in his role as the former head of the recently bankrupt MF Global Holdings Ltd.

. . .
"While the last few days of MF Global were chaotic, I did not instruct anyone to lend customer funds to MF Global for any of its affiliates, nor was I told that anyone had done so," he said.

Corzine said Duffy might have been referring to problems Corzine encountered days before MF Global sought bankruptcy protection, when he was trying to raise cash by selling billions of dollars of securities.

He said J.P. Morgan Chase told him that it would not engage in those transactions until overdrafts in London were cleaned up. Corzine said he asked the firm's back office in Chicago to resolve the problem.

Later that day, J.P. Morgan Chase contacted Corzine again and said it needed assurances that the transfer of funds did not violate federal rules, Corzine said. Corzine said MF Global’s Chicago staff "explicitly confirmed to me that the funds were properly transferred, and I understood that J.P. Morgan Chase was satisfied, since they executed . . . billions of dollars of trades with MF Global."

"I do know that I never authorized anyone to use customer funds to make a loan or a transfer of funds, I never intended to, nor do I think I said anything that could have been construed to do that," the former chairman and chief executive of MF Global testified.
. . . .

You see, the actions Duffy testified about would comprise what Ed Morrissey succinctly summarized in his post as "the transfer of customer funds to cover his big bets on European sovereign debt." Jon had just previously testified under oath that, regardless of the many things he simply could not recall, that he certainly did not do that! And, Corzine further insisted that he was not made aware of anyone else at the firm ordering that transfer at the time.

Because of his unique position as the head of MF Global at the time, doing the one or "condoning" the other, would have been illegal on his part.

So, in summary, Jon clearly remembers what didn't happen. It's just part about what did take place that seems to be giving the guy fits.

Hmmmm . . . maybe the Wall Street Journal has the right questions after all!

One Voice: "Literally" Slip-Slidin' Away!

2011-12-15T09:29:00.036-05:00

Ahhhh, yes! Remember? That "ONE VOICE" thingy?

"I need ya! Jon needs ya! . . . Are ya fired up? Are you ready to go?"

And now there is this one from the RNC, below . . . featuring a frenzied Sheriff Joe, telling us how, right at the beginning, Jon Corzine was "literally" the "first guy I called!"

Sez Joe:

"He's the smartest guy that I know, in terms of the economy and on finance. I really mean this!"

And how about Joe's priceless closer, huh?

"Jon was right ... C'mon, I could start a mantra ... Jon was right! Jon WAS RIGHT!"

(ht: Tina Korbe at HotAir here.)

And then, you'll want to go here, starting at 928 to hear the "one recent voice" of Jon Corzine:

" . . . Obviously, on the forefront of everyone's mind, including mine, are the varying reports that customer accounts have not been reconciled. I was stunned when I was told on Sunday October 30th, two-thousand and eleven, that MF could not -- MF Global could not account for many hundreds of millions of dollars of client money. I remain deeply concerned about the impact of the unreconciled frozen funds have on MF Global's customers, and others. I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date. As the chief executive officer of the MF Global holding company, I ultimately had overall responsibility for the firm. . . ."

" . . . literally . . . ?"

Makes you kind of wonder what these guys know that he didn't know.

Campaign 2012: Mike Kelly, PA 3rd

2011-12-09T16:37:00.022-05:00

Who would have guessed that a car dealer, hailing from the hills of western Pennsylvania, would be the right guy to talk some real common sense into Members of the United States Congress?

Well, it just so happens that the car dealer I'm talking about -- who has indeed been making a whole lot of sense -- is a guy named Mike Kelly, just now half way through his first term representing Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District, a sprawling district comprised of large chunks of several rural counties, all located in the northwestern corner of the Commonwealth, north of the City of Pittsburgh.

Mike was born in the "Steel City" back in 1948, but he hails from Butler, a modest town of 15 thousand residents or so, set along the Connoquenessing Creek, north of Pittsburgh. Butler is where Mike grew up and where he played high school football, before attending Notre Dame.

Butler is just over 33 miles, and about a little less than an hour's drive up Rt. 8, north of Pittsburgh. It is also located about 100 miles (give or take a few depending on your route) due south of the largest town in the 3rd District, the City of Erie, Pennsylvania. Erie, the 4th largest municipality in Pennsylvania, with a population of just over 100,000 residents, is the only Pennsylvania port on the Great Lakes, located in the northernmost section of the state.

Just listen to these comments of Mike's during a recent committee hearing in Congress, talking about the need for a balance budget.

A Reporter's Bias -- Hidden in Plain Sight

2011-11-10T15:56:00.024-05:00

No one will likely catch much about the following in any New Jersey news or media coverage, but Rutgers University graduate James O'Keefe is at it again with his Project Veritas. His focus this time -- the political bias of news reporters, and a video example of out-and-out partisan bias of a reporter, posted on his YouTube channel, veritasvisuals (embed below).

On October 4th of this year, one of O'Keefe's staff attended a journalism event focusing on the Pulitzer Prize, and entitled, "HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT," which was held up at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. There he managed to catch reporter Amy Ellis Nutt, a very recent Pulitzer-Prize winner (the "Feature Writing Prize, 2010") for the Star-Ledger in New Jersey, enthusiastically sharing her political views with someone she apparently thought was a journalism student. The camera was rolling. Nutt can be heard voicing her agreement with the "student" that President Obama needs to be re-elected, and then she adds, in the context of their discussion of the Presidential race this coming year, a string of pejorative epithets, ones specifically aimed at Governor Chris Christie, calling him in turn an "ass,"an "asshole," a "bully," and a "liar."

(ht: NewsAlert, here.)

So, armed with the fresh tape, O'Keefe first then went up to the Star-Ledger offices to ask editor Kevin Whitmer his reaction to the appropriateness of a reporter for his paper harboring such obvious partisan biases. Whitmer was not in his office and therefore did not meet with O'Keefe.

Then, James went over to New York and up to Morningside Heights to the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, in order to try to meet with Amy Nutt herself. She is a teacher in that Graduate School. And, of course, when confronted with the information she vigorously objected to having been taped, at one point saying, "and so I absolutely have no comment to make to you." Having refused to meet with O'Keefe, she finally hung up the phone on him when he began asking about her expressed views on the need to reelect President Obama.

So, O'Keefe then walked around and spoke to some of her colleagues at the school, including reporters Jay Rosen and Dale Maharidge, who each in turn refused to comment on her openly partisan and disparaging comments.

Maharidge even sent O'Keefe and his group an email calling them "shitheads," citing a lengthy Facebook posting of his about them, and closing with, "Fuck you, man. Bring it on."

But save a chuckle for the short clip at the end . . . the one featuring Amy Nutt, up on the panel dais, pontificating as she spoke to the group of students, telling them that pursuit is important, saying:

"It taught me how important is is to keep asking the same questions, 'cause you get more information."

Priceless!

Diluting a Message -- Or, Denying Our Past?

2011-11-06T11:12:00.031-05:00

Huh? Are you kidding me?

Obama Administration Opposes FDR Prayer at WWII Memorial
By Todd Starnes Published November 4, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are expressing outrage after the Obama administration announced its objection to adding President Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.
. . .
Roosevelt asked the nation to join him in prayer as U.S. and allied troops launched the invasion that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. He asked God to give the allied troops courage and faith, saying, "With thy blessing we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy."

But Robert Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, said any plaque or inscription of the prayer would "dilute" the memorial's central message and therefore "should not be altered."

"It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as proposed in HR 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial's central message and its ability to clearly convey that message to move, educate, and inspire its many visitors," Abbey said in written testimony.
. . .

Apparently President Roosevelt didn't think that player would "dilute" the message at the time. Otherwise, why would he have offered it to the entire nation -- in wartime, no less?

This is supposed to be a memorial to what actually happened . . . not a commemoration of our subsequent silent surrender to political correctness!

Typical . . . next I suppose someone from the Obama Administration will be suggesting that carefully placed dabs of Liquid Paper ™ be painted over certain key words and phrases in publicly displayed historical documents -- to wit:

• "and Nature's God" ...

• "by their Creator" ...

• ", appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions," and,

• ", with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,"

ALL of which, of course, are right there on very prominent display in the national archives, as they were contained in our original founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

Surely, this crew must believe that Thomas Jefferson's exact words "dilute" the message for viewers of that founding document, no?

"The Doorbell"

2011-08-08T16:47:00.011-04:00

From Powerline, "The Doorbell" a video by Don Brookins.

I missed this on when it was posted by John Hinderaker back on July 28th, but the link was sent to me today by reader Jake. The timing could not be better. It seems to me that it is a rather perfect response to the President's remarks today on the credit downgrade by S&P. The frightening payoff line comes near the end when the voice "from the government" tells the young mother, "I wasn't talking to you."

As John noted, in pertinent part, in that post:

"This video titled "Doorbell," submitted by Don Brookins, wasn’t a prize winner in the Power Line Prize competition, but it meets the purpose of the competition very well: in simple fashion, it brings home the significance of the federal debt crisis and the impact of the debt on the next generation."
. . . .

"I See Debt People"

2011-08-06T09:41:00.009-04:00

The photo below was tweeted back on July 31st by Luke Russert, with the following caption:

"This guy wins protest sign of the day at the Capitol."

But to me, the instant appeal of the photo is that it is nearly pitch perfect parody . . . having the archetypal characteristics of a New Yorker cartoon. Note the (fortuitous?) "timing" and detail, including the red "do not cross" electronic hand, and the "Do Not Enter" sign in the background, just in front of the deep woods. (ht TigerHawk and others who have help punctuate the mood of this past week by posting this photo.)

That Ain't Lucky, Brendan. That's Good!

2011-06-14T09:57:00.032-04:00

In the ongoing exchange between Sarah Palin and certain lemon-sucking press scolds who consistently, sometimes dutifully carry water for the left wing, it seems to me that "Sarah Barracuda," the little state championship point guard from Wasilla, AK, has still got game, now hasn't she?

The way I count it, that was two in a row for her on her road tour way up here into the historic northeast. Two victories on the road, and deep in enemy territory! Wow! First, there was the Paul Revere ride incident, and then she seems to have blanked 'em on the email flurry.

Was she lucky?

Well . . . as for those 24,000 pages of emails, I'd say this:

Never in the course of media events, has so little been gained, by so many, from so much. Those 13,000 emails of hers were all snooped through, pored over and second guessed repeatedly . . . all to no avail.

Now, you really cannot count the recent Palin tour itself as a separate victory, but the image of a few bloodthirsty scribes actually grousing at her about the possible dangerous conditions created by their decision to follow her bus around from town to town, all whilst grubbing for any tiny tidbit to trash her with, is just priceless. "Her American Flag is too large," they crowed. "It's illegal!"

Can you imagine?

Harken back with me for a moment, dateline Boston, to the risible claim by that stuffy local Boston University history professor, Brendan McConville, who, unable to bring himself to just concede the score about Paul Revere to Sarah Palin, instead improbably sniffed that she was probably just "lucky" when she correctly pointed out one of the lesser-known fact about Revere's famous ride through the Massachusetts countryside. As was reported well by the Boston Herald, quoting McConville:

. . .
"Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, 'Look, there is a mobilization going on that you'’ll be confronting,' and the British are aware as they're marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That's accurate."

. . .

McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin’s remarks reflect scholarship.

"I would call her lucky in her comments," McConville said.

McConville could have been an honest gent about the whole thing and said something like, "Looks to me like Mrs. Palin and her handlers took the time to bone up a little on their American History, or she was paying very close attention during a tour. Either way, good for her. She made her point, and her critics came up short."

But he just couldn't bear to acknowledge her score, and instead he improbably concluded that she must have just gotten lucky. Sure, Brendan! It happens every day, doesn't it? Come on!

So as a result, right there in the Boston Herald, Sarah ended up with the basket and the foul, for a three point conversion.

Anyway, I keep envisioning Sarah appearing at some future event -- or perhaps even making a TV appearance -- with a big smile on her face, sporting a large electric blue political button that simply says, "Lucky!" in big, bold white letters. Or, perhaps we can imagine her husband Todd wearing a tee-shirt saying, "I'm With Lucky!"

When I was a child, acronyms played a far more limited role in popular cultural than they do today, given the recent explosion of texting and and limited keystroke social media, like Twitter, all of which seems to have leapfrogged on the shoulders of frequently abbreviated commenting on story threads, or in emails . . . FYI, LOL, LMAO, WTF, STFU . . . the list is endless.

Probably the most catchy acronym from way back then, was the marketing shorthand for Lucky Strike cigarettes . . . L.S.M.F.T. -- Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco. It worked well for them for many, many years.

As kids, naturally such expressions quickly morphed into our own popular re-phrasings such as Loose Suspenders Means Falling Trousers, and other ones that tended to be a little more risque.

But, as also noted there in the Urban Dictionary, at one point in the late '40s the acronym took on a political dimension, even in the years before being printed on the side of the packs of cigarettes . . . "Lord, Save Me From Truman" was indeed a popular rephrasing amongst some Republicans at the time.

How, then, might someone put it as a way to describe the recent out-and-out media effort to get former Governor Palin with the dumpster-diving inquiry onto her years of emails when she was Governor, an effort that, as described in The Telegraph by Tony Harnden, backfired "on her media antagonists."

The trove of more than 13,000 emails detailing almost every aspect of Sarah Palin’s governorship of Alaska, released late on Friday, paints a picture of her as an idealistic, conscientious, humorous and humane woman slightly bemused by the world of politics.

One can only assume that the Left-leaning editors who dispatched teams of reporters to remote Juneau, the Alaskan capital, to pore over the emails in the hope of digging up a scandal are now viewing the result as a rather poor return on their considerable investment.

If anything, Mrs Palin seems likely to emerge from the scrutiny of the 24,000 pages, contained in six boxes and weighing 275 pounds, with her reputation considerably enhanced. As a blogger at Powerline noted, the whole saga might come to be viewed as 'an embarrassment for legacy media'."
. . . . (link in original)

Yeah. There you go. Let's translate:

L. S. M. F. T. in Sarah Palin parlance.

Lame Stream Media Fails Totally!

Sarah was subsequently asked about the "gotcha" squads from media central in an interview by former NJ Superior Court Judge, Andrew Napolitano, on the Fox News Channel:
(video source, ht, William Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.

Folks, that ain't lucky. It's good!

Media Message . . . "You Betcha!"

2011-06-11T13:54:00.004-04:00

Behold the Enmity of the Elites!

2011-06-10T12:10:00.013-04:00

06/10/2011 -- The New York Times and the Washington Post: have each furiously primed the "Palinater Pump" with their direct "crowdsourcing" appeal soliciting the public to help them "investigate" here (NYT), and "contextualize" here (WaPo) the large dump of emails to and from the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The documents are being released today by the State of Alaska in response to FOI requests:

Sez Me in reaction to these two media outlet requests:

Someone please tell me how we are not now in the throes of a full blown ideological war here in America?

This action is not just compelling evidence of these two newspapers openly and brazenly enlisting themselves on the side of a political party movement . . . which would itself be a unique and foreboding event in modern American history!

No . . . heretofore, these two news-gathering outlets had tried to maintain at least a pretense of objectivity, a wall of separation between their news and editorial expressions.

This action much more than just further blurs that ever-crumbling line! It is a case of two "elite" news organizations deliberately provoking an electronic mob.

The NYT and the WaPo have just cast aside the last vestiges of their own senses of civility and haughty superiority, couched all these years in claims of pursuing a "higher purpose."

Note the tentative and telling "first offer" from the WaPo . . . the proposed limitation to 100 select deputies . . . which was just as quickly cast aside by them in the face of the NYT open invitation to all! They obviously had at least some initial misgivings, but "monkey see, monkey do" has held sway.

Fingers stabbing away, they both have just pointed accusingly -- out across the angry crowd of nasty little ginned-up ideologues -- at "the hated one."

Nakedly and shamefully demonstrating their own inadequacy to the task, they have each gnashed their teeth, and shouted out loud over the little mob of haters:

"There she is! GET 'ER!

Behold the ugly face of the Enmity of the Elites!

* * *

(The above statement of mine was first posted by me as a portion of a comment on a thread at a post on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion blog describing the actions of the New York Times and the Washington Post in openly soliciting the assistance of legions of Palin-haters on the web to sift through and target items from the large release by the State of Alaska, supposed 24,000 pages of emails to and from Sarah Palin dating from her tenure as the Governor of Alaska.)

He Doesn't Dissemble Well!

2011-06-02T11:20:00.032-04:00

(UPDATES (2), below:) Regarding Congressman Anthony Weiner's elusive yFrog account, the one in which the supposedly "hacked-in" photo resided:

In an interview, Congressman Weiner specifically told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, the following regarding "his" yFrog account:

"As far as the yFrog account, I'll be very honest with you, I didn't really know for sure what that was until this thing popped up, and I clicked on it, and then it directed me to where these photographs were being kept, an and I, I kind of quickly deleted it and moved on with my life."

(his verbal emphasis in original).

Listen for yourself at 2:10 to 2:25:

Remember now, this took place right at the time of the incident!

So, like Curious George, the Member sees the photo of a member, clicks on it, suddenly discovers he has a yFrog account, with photos in it, and deletes the photo and/or the account!!

So, if there is any proof at all that he, a known social media "technophile," created the yFrog account, and especially if there were any (many?) prior instances of his having sent or "tweeted" photos being kept in that yFrog account, then Weiner was simply dissembling in his interview with Maddow, and she missed, or ignored the obvious opportunity for a follow-up question.

UPDATE: There is proof that he used the yFrog account (some including using the function from his Blackberry), on a few occasions recently -- several uses less than one month before making that comment to Maddow! Having myself posted some of the key information herein in a comment responding on a post at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion, another commenter there, @VetHusbandFather quickly researched the issue and responded on the thread by identifying three such instances, two of them on May 5th, and one on February 25th. Therefore, it became clear that, contrary to what he told Rachel Maddow, Congressman Weiner was quite familiar with the yFrog photo posting application!

Details below of his frequent yFrog use, below.*

Now let's turn for a moment to the June 1, 2011 NY Times story "Lawmaker Denies Sending Suggestive Photo but Doesn’t Rule Out It's of Him" written by Raymond Hernandez.

From the story, there is this little tidbit:

. . .
Jack Levin, the chief executive of yFrog, the Twitter-affiliated image and video service that was used to upload the photo, said in an interview on Wednesday that his company did not have reason to believe that its user passwords were exposed or stolen. He said it was possible that the photo could have been sent from Mr. Weiner’s yFrog account through his Twitter password or through a yFrog password.

Mr. Levin said neither Mr. Weiner's office nor any law enforcement authorities had contacted him or his company to inquire about the photo.
. . . .

So, Congressman Weiner claims in an interview with Rachel Maddow that he knew nothing about the yFrog account. Yet his investigators, as of yesterday, had not even contacted yFrog with any inquiries whatsoever about the account, including when it was created, and by whom!

Nor have they inquired about when the specific "offending" photo was uploaded and by whom?

Nor, presumably, have they asked about other photos that were residing in the account?

He doesn't dissemble well!

# # # # #

* UPDATE details: Here are the links to several "tweets" (including two of the three identified by commenter @VetHusbandFather) demonstrating Congressman Weiner's familiarity with the yFrog photo-forwarding application associated with his Twitter account. It turns out that he sent four tweets with yFrog photos attached on May 5th alone, here, here, here, and here. Readers should note that in his hasty response to the public posting of the "underwear shot" from his "yFrog" account, the Congressman apparently deleted several, but not all of the photos from the yFrog account. There is absolutely no question that he is very familiar with the yFrog application and functioning. His statement to the contrary to Rachel Maddow was completely misleading.

In the meantime, Michelle Malkin has also explored this Congressman's familiarity with the yFrog application, and she has identified at least 6 uses of the function in which he uploaded photos from yFrog using his Blackberry.

From her post: (links in original):

Six of these instances were photos tweeted directly from his Blackberry to Twitter. Yfrog has a Twitter app for Blackberry phones and is a default photo host for the Blackberry Twitter app. In other words, Yfrog’s set-up allows a Twitter user to authorize Yfrog as one’s primary photo-hosting site — and bypass a separate sign-in process to the Yfrog site. You can snap a pic with your phone, upload it as part of a Twitter message, and have the yfrog link automatically generate and appear in your tweet.

Weiner’s backers argue that he has no familiarity with Yfrog because he never manually logged into its stand-alone site.

Once again, lets review what he told Rachel Maddow:

"As far as the yFrog account, I'll be very honest with you, I didn't really know for sure what that was until this thing popped up, and I clicked on it, and then it directed me to where these photographs were being kept, an and I, I kind of quickly deleted it and moved on with my life."

(his verbal emphasis in original).

It's not just his backers making the claim. It's him!

Weiner is a guy who relishes an opportunity to crack one-liners. That one, it seems, was downright risible -- even though he didn't intend it to be!

UPDATE II:

Not to belabor the point, but Michelle Malkin made absolute mincemeat of his claim of unfamiliarity with yFrog by pointing out at least 6 instances where he uploaded photos to the application and sent them using Twitter where he was apparently using his "official" Blackberry!

This information has particular relevance to his utterly disingenuous statement to Rachel Maddow during the interview.

So, I suppose this really raises a few pointed questions for the Congressman, and let's get specific:

Congressman Weiner, a number of messages were quite recently sent from your Twitter account having items attached to them, including digital photos, uploaded from your yFrog account.

Blogger Michelle Malkin has specifically documented a significant number of such messages, including 6 messages sent from your Blackberry.

If, as you said to Rachel Maddow, "As far as the yFrog account, I'll be very honest with you, I didn't really know for sure what that was until this thing popped up . . ." then could you please explain how is it that you were familiar enough with the operation of your yFrog account application to be able to take, upload and attach items from the account on a significant number or prior occasions, including very recently from your Blackberry, and to successfully send the photos out publicly via Twitter?

For example, two such photos you tweeted on May 5th were taken at a Presidential event on the street, both using your Blackberry.

One of them included a candid, up close photo of President Obama himself speaking to a police officer. A second photo, presumably taken at the same event while awaiting the arrival of the POTUS, was also sent from your Blackberry and even contains the twitter "hashtag" #SoIsTheOfficialTweeter."

How do you square these "tweets" with attachments with your statement claiming unfamiliarity with yFrog to Rachel Maddow?

Also, are you "#SoIsTheOfficialTweeter" -- that is, did you create that hashtag?

As a national public figure, you have a significant reputation as a "technophile" when it comes to "social media," and you have recently said you personally did the "tweeting" from your account.

Did you also personally create your yFrog account, and if so when?

Joe, Stand Up, Joe! Let 'Em See Ya!

2011-03-23T13:29:00.014-04:00

UPDATE: below:

03/23/2011: Anyone heard from Mr. "I teach separation of powers" Joe Biden today?

Here's what he said he and his experts believed, back in 2007 . . . that a Congressionally unauthorized attack on Iran would have been an "impeachable offense" unless we were attacked or unless there were proof that we were about to be attacked, and that he would have personally "led the effort" to pursue the matter and to seek the impeachment of the President.

Did you catch that? He told Chris Matthews,

"I want to stand by that comment. The reason I made the comment was as a warning."

Okay. Stand up, Joe! Let's hear from you about the military attack on Libya, the one that has no congressional authorization.

UPDATE: John Hinderaker at Powerline has now posted the video too. He notes wrily,

"I'm beginning to understand why liberals believe so fervently in a 'living' Constitution. They need it to change from year to year, depending on who is in office."

Indeed.

Mayor Harry, Joe Biden, and the Baaaaaaby Ruth Man

2011-03-15T15:18:00.077-04:00

UPDATE III: 03/22/2011: Here was an item I had missed from Michael Falcone, the ABC reporter who got this story. He questioned the Amtrak CEO, Joseph Boardman who, among others, bailed from the Amtrack train when it stalled in Baltimore. Boardman admitted they had pulled one faulty transformer off line for maintenance when a second one then punked out on them. So, they have applied for more federal funds to fix the problem! (ht, Daily Caller, here.)

@michaelpfalcone
Before he abandoned ship #Amtrak CEO said they took 1 transformer offline for wknd maintenance. 2nd one died

When he asked Boardman about it, the CEO said Amtrack would go back and seek additional federal funds for the "fix" to ensure that would not happen again. Of course they will! And Wilmington Station's new namesake, Joe Biden will no doubt work to find the funds for them!

Here was Falcone's tweet on the subject back on the 19th:

@michaelpfalcone
#Amtrak CEO tells me he has applied for extra federal funding to ensure that outages like today's don't happen

UPDATE II: 03/21/2011: Yet another great capper to a story that will just not quit! As if the considerable cost overruns from the federal "Stimulus" project being named for VP Joe Biden were not maddening enough, we now learn that, because of an electrical outage, an Amtrak train became indefinitely stalled in Baltimore on Saturday. It was carrying a few Wilmington-bound Amtrak and other railroad officials as passengers, who had to get off the stalled train in Baltimore, and drive by car, in order to make it on time to their destination -- the dedication ceremony in Wilmington of the new Joe Biden train station . . . owned by Amtrak!

ABC's Michael Falcone points out that (ht Ed Morrissey @ Hot Air) because of an electrical power outage in Baltimore, in order to make the Saturday dedication of the Joe Biden train station party on time, three railroad "bigs" -- Amtrak President and CEO Joseph Boardman, Federal Railroad Administration chief, Joseph Szabo, and another Amtrak board member, Jeff Moreland -- all had to get off the station-stalled train, and actually drive the remaining distance by car to make it on time for the newly-refurbished train station dedication ceremony in Wilmington, DE!

Falcone also noted that because of the electrical outage, passengers who remained on the stalled train were further inconvenienced by the inablity to use the toilets on the train.

That, of course, was an immediate reminder to me of a funny little "ditty" which was at some point improvidently set to the tune of an otherwise perfectly lovely musical piece by Antonin Dvorák, Humoresque Op. 101, No. 7 in G Flat Major, which ditty I recall from my childhood, and (along with a very minor and relevant amendment which I have just supplied) the first verse went something like this:

♫ Passengers will please refrain, ♪
From flushing toilets while the train, ♬
Is ~~standing~~ stranded in the station,
I love you! ♪

♫ We encourage constipation, ♪
While the train is in the station, ♬
Darling, moonlight makes me
Think of you! ♪

UPDATE: below, 03/17/2011: Amtrak owned and federal stimulus-funded train station rehab in Wilmington, DE, just named for Vice-President Joe Biden, came in $5.7 million OVER budget. The rehabilitated train station is being named for long-time train rider, "Amtrak" Joe Biden.

Two stories dominate the perceived "inappropriate naming" of places of public accommodation news today, one out of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the other out of Wilmington, Delaware.

The Indiana story has been around for a while, and arises out of the reluctance on the part of the current town fathers of Fort Wayne to honor the results of an "on-line" public poll that had resulted in a majority of votes cast in favor of naming the new government facility for a former mayor of the City, one Harry Baals.

Harry, a Republican, who was born in 1886, was indeed the long-time Mayor of Fort Wayne, having served between 1934 and 1947, and then again from 1951 until his death in 1954. Surely, he was a man deserving of an honor for his long service.

There really only seems to have been one glitch. According to the Fox News story (ht, The Daily Caller here:

"The former mayor pronounced his name "balls," although his descendants pronounce their name 'bales.'"

That was apparently enough to convince the current administration that calling the new government facility the "Harry Baals Government Center" might lead to some measure of ridicule. Though a City Hall spokesman stated that the reason was a reluctance to name the facility after a person, they also rejected the second-place recommendation from the digital plebiscite, which was to call it "Thunder Dome." Instead the new facility will henceforth be known simply as "Citizens Square."

The second story, however, is truly obscene. It involves the newly refurbished train station in Wilmington, Delaware, a project which was paid for using federal "stimulus funds" obtained from the Obama/Biden Administration under the jurisdiction of the federal ARPA program. According to the somewhat obsequious story -- "Biden's Name to Grace New Rail Station" -- posted by Catherine Brown of the Philadelphia NBC affiliate, the station is being named the Joseph R. Biden Railroad Station "in honor" of the sitting Vice-President, a perennial train-rider. She also notes that an "open-house" party for the public will mark the re-opening occasion.

"Wilmington Station underwent a nearly two-year, $37.7-million renovation. Funding for the project included $20 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."

This incident is obviously replete with conflict of interest, both on it's face and through a series of conflicting connections to the Vice President. For example, consider the following according to a recent post on the Family Security Matters blog by Michelle Malkin, entitled "Who's Policing Amtrak Joe Biden's Rail Boondoggles?":

"Compounding matters now, cronyism runs rampant in the federal rail bureaucracy. Biden's lobbyist son, Hunter, sits on the Amtrak board of directors. Amtrak Vice President Eleanor Acheson is a close pal of -- you guessed it -- Joe Biden. She oversees the very Law Department accused of interfering repeatedly with the taxpayer advocates in the inspector general's office. Acheson hired Biden's former Senate staffer Jonathan Meyer as her deputy general counsel. Meyer called it a 'happy coincidence.'"

To put it bluntly, Joe Biden would be an utter embarrassment for allowing this kind of self-congratulatory nonsense to happen. But his connections throughout the "federal rail bureaucracy" make it an absolute scandal.

Knowing of Biden's embarrassing and thoroughly unearned ego, one can imagine he'd probably even consider pushing to add in a digital kiosk, say one where visitors might have an opportunity to listen to any of a series of selections . . . recorded quotations from Joe.

Just think about it, if you will. You push a button and hear . . . "I think I probably have a much higher I.Q. than you do, I suspect . . ."

This kind of official self-praise, of having buildings named after yourself is what they used to do in communist countries – e.g., for Uncle Joe Stalin back in the old Soviet Union -- or today in other authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, or for royalty, where fostering the cult of the personality of the "leader" as the object of public affection.

I grew up in the State of Delaware, in an area called Edgemoor, just north of Wilmington. As a child, I took the train to Philadelphia or New York on occasion, or down to Washington every once in a while. During several years I spent working, or in college, most of them in and around New York, I rode the train from Wilmington Station quite frequently.

It is a quiet station along the Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington line.

The one stand out train-related memory I have, from all those years ago, was of a guy who would board the train at the 30th street Station in South Philly, and who would ride up to the North Philadelphia station (or visa-versa if the train was headed south), hawking a few impulse items to the passengers between those two stops, eking out a bare living for himself and his family.

"Maaaagazines!" he'd announce, drawing out the word as he entered each train car with his bag of stuff. And then he would blurt out his almost magical come-on . . . "Clark Bar, Baaaaaaby Ruth!" he’d temptingly drone. Of course, every child passenger alive wanted a "Baby Ruth" a candy bar with its own storied history. I’d bet that over the years thousands of kids happily agreed to ride the train, on the outside chance they might end up with one of those tempting chocolate-covered peanut, caramel and nougat candy treats.

Now there was a working man who deserved to have a train station named after him! I never knew his name, but generations of train riders were entertained and surely tempted by the man with the "Baaaaaaaby Ruth!"

He'd be my vote for the honor.

UPDATE: below, 03/17/2011: According to the Washington Times, the train station in Wilmington, Delaware which re-opened in December, but which is being officially re-opened at a ceremony and party to be held on Saturday, was lavishly renovated in the course of a project that was heavily underwritten by federal funds ($20 million of $37.7) using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), or "Stimulus Act" funds.

In the end, reports the paper, the project came in $5.7 million over budget.

The rehabilitation project for the Amtrak station was a pet project of long-time train rider, Vice-President Joe Biden, the so-called Obama Administration "stimulus sheriff," whose family members and political friends heavily populate the political table of organization for Amtrak (see above).

According to the paper, the exact breakdown of the costs remains quite "murky."

Not only did the White House cite the projected cost at $32 million, but Amtrak used that figure in a 2009 press release documenting its Delaware projects.

But Ms. Hunter, the Amtrak spokeswoman, said the company’s original budget for the renovation was actually $35.7 million: with $20 million from stimulus money; $12 million from Delaware’s Department of Transportation; and $3.7 million from Amtrak itself. Ms. Hunter said the final cost reached $37.7 million when Amtrak added $2 million worth of work that was not part of the original scope of the project.

In its official Recovery Act report, Amtrak gave a different figure altogether - $36 million to the dollar - for the refurbishing project. And it said the breakdown in funding was $20 million in stimulus funds and $4 million from a 2009 federal grant, in addition to the $12 million from Delaware DOT.

Muslim Brotherhood Re: Obama Call to Renounce Violence: "WAR!"

2011-02-01T15:15:00.021-05:00

Welcome to the world of chin-leading, cold hard short-sightedness on the part of the Obama Administration. In the face of the massive unrest and demonstrations in Egypt, calling for the ouster of the autocratic regime of Hosni Mubarak, the Administration did not call for early elections, mind you.

They instead sent an unmistakable 180 degree signal to the world . . . that the United States is now perfectly happy to endorse the immediate inclusion of a known Islamist terror-supporting organization as a power-sharing partner in a "reform" government of Egypt, such participation conditioned only on their rejection of violence and recognition of democratic goals!

As reported early last evening (ht, Ed Morrissey @ HotAir, here) in the Los Angeles Times, the

The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.

The organization must reject violence and recognize democratic goals if the U.S. is to be comfortable with it taking part in the government, the White House said.
. . . .

Well, that was what the President said yesterday evening. And by this morning we see how well that "condition precedent" of Obama’s worked.

Muslim Brotherhood leaders are already calling for war with Israel!

From . . . The Jerusalem Post:

Muslim Brotherhood: ‘Prepare Egyptians for war with Israel’

By YAAKOV LAPPIN
02/01/2011 02:00

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al-Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease "in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime." He added that "the people should be prepared for war against Israel," saying the world should understand that "the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime."

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they "would not kill their brothers." He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after "seeing millions head for the streets."

You know, I think I’m going with Bill Roggio on this one. As he recently put it in context, the Muslim Brotherhood is a "gateway to al-Qaeda" Islamist organization.

Just two weeks ago, Roggio accurately described recently killed Jordanian terrorist, Mansur al Shami, as:

"[a]n al Qaeda operative from Jordan [who] was killed during a recent US airstrike in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan . . . .".

And further down in his piece, he made the following observation:

. . .
Shami served as an ideologue and as a bodyguard for senior al Qaeda leader Mustafa Abu Yazid, the group’s commander in Afghanistan and chief financier. According to Shami’s brother, he worked for Taliban Radio in Afghanistan in 2001. Shami’s father is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that is a gateway to al Qaeda, and Shami’s other brother Ibrahim was captured by US forces in Afghanistan in 2001 and spent five years at Guantanamo Bay before being released in 2006.
. . . . (my emphasis)

On the English language version of their website called, "Ikwanweb", consider the Muslim Brotherhood's specious response, an attempt to belittle the statement with the following title . . . "The Muslim Brotherhood is the new marijuana".

It would be a laughable argument if it were not so treacherous . . . i.e., that this would somehow be the same as saying (as they did) that the Catholic Church and the Republican Party must be "gateways" to terrorism because of the actions of the racist domestic terrorist, Eric Robert Rudolph!

The fact is that the well-worn pathway between the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda began long, long ago, as was carefully documented right at the very beginning of the seminal history of al Qaeda, "The Looming Tower" written by Lawrence Wright.

Even the writer of the Muslim Brotherhood article linked above, concedes that basic point, thus essentially obviating the legitimacy of the remainder of the "response" to Bill Roggio.

Again, from the article:

"If you want to argue that the Muslim Brotherhood is an ideological predecessor to al-Qaeda, fine. You can draw a line from Sayyid Qutb’s writings to modern-day salafi thought."

Indeed!

This, of course, leaves the rest of us with one glaring question. Who do you suppose made that "3 a.m. call" to the President telling him his recommendation that MB "renounce violence" as a condition to our feeling comfortable with their participation in an Egyptian "reform government" seems to have been summarily rejected . . . Hillary?

Whoever it was, I can just imagine it might have happened something like this:

* * * * *

President Obama: "Hello? Is that you Fenster?"

(State Dept. Aide) Fenster: "Yes sir. Good morning, sir. Mr. President, regarding Egypt, I have some good news and some bad news, sir."

President Obama: "Don't fool around with me, Fenster, just give me the good news first!"

Fenster: "Unhh . . . the Muslim Brotherhood has summarily rejected your call yesterday evening for them to renounce violence."

President Obama: "Fenster, I thought I just told you to give me the good news first!"

Fenster: "That was the good news, Sir. You see, they are also calling for war with Israel!"

"A victory for eloquence at some expense to grammar"

2010-12-22T14:29:00.015-05:00

12/22/2010 On December 22, 1944, General Anthony C. McAuliffe sent a famous one word written note to the German commander, General Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz, in response to the latter's demand that McAuliffe surrender his 101st Airborne Division troops at Bastogne, Belgium, during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. Publius at Big Government has a post on the General's famous response, and a good photo of that great American hero.

McAuliffe, as the unit's artillery commander, was temporarily in command of the 101st Airborne Division, as General Maxwell D. Taylor was away at a staff conference in Washington, D.C. The written surrender ultimatum from the German commander arrived at the American headquarters under a flag of truce. That complete surrender demand was eventually taken to McAuliffe by staff, and attempted to play on American concerns over potential civilian casualties, should the battle continue . . . "All the serious civilian losses caused by this artillery fire would not correspond with the well-known American humanity."

Here then was that typed written response from General Mac to General von Lüttwitz . . . word for word.

"To the German Commander, NUTS!, The American Commander"

From the Wikipedia entry about the famous incident involving General McAuliffe:

. . .

According to various accounts from those present, when McAuliffe was told of the German demand for surrender he said "nuts". At a loss for an official reply, Lt. Col. Harry Kinnard suggested that his first remark summed up the situation well, which was agreed to by the others. The official reply: "To the German Commander, NUTS!, The American Commander" was typed and delivered by Colonel Joseph Harper, commanding the 327th Glider Infantry, and his S-3, Major Alvin Jones, to the German delegation. Harper offered an explanation of the meaning of the word to the Germans, telling them that in "plain English" it meant "Go to hell."[1]

According to an article in the Daily Mail the reply was not "Nuts," but a four letter expletive that was changed for propaganda purposes for domestic consumption [citation needed]. But that was not the case, according to Vincent Vicari, McAuliffe's personal aide, who was there at the time. As quoted by Richard Pyle of the Associated Press Dec. 12, 2004, Vicari said, "General Mac was the only general I ever knew who did not use profane language. 'Nuts' was part of his normal vocabulary."
. . . .

Well said, General! Well said!

The footnote above, linking to the internet posting of Chapter 14 of S.L.A. Marshall, Bastogne: The First Eight Days, describes the incident in even greater detail. It is certailny worth the read for more information on the incident, and is the source for the "quote" title of this post . . . a characterization of the description of the entire incident and the immediate aftermath, written at the time by the unit's G-2 . . . the G-2 Periodic Report No. 4.

The real eloquence, though, was contained in that one word quip by General McAuliffe. It was one for the ages -- 66 years ago -- and it still brings a smile to our faces, and tears to our eyes!

Petitioners to Destabilize U.S. Economy & Ban Water

2010-12-10T14:19:00.019-05:00

12/10/10 -- This is really priceless. Make no mistake about it . . . in addition to its open enemies, the United States of America, and for that matter, common sense, have their full share of stupid, mindless detractors in this world as well, some of whom live here, and most of whom probably think they really do mean well.

A bunch of them, for example, were among the petition signers on the following two "mock" petitions circulated by students belonging to an organization called CFACT at the very recent COP 16 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, held in Cancun, Mexico, last month. (ht, posts on "Watts Up With That" & HotAir)

The first of the two CFACT petitions, entitled "Petition to Set a Global Standard" called for the United States to be blackmailed into signing a Global Warming Treaty, and openly calling for the intentional destabilizing of the American Economy by imposing a set of United Nations enforced tariffs other trade restrictions, specifically aimed a reducing the GDP of our country by 6% over a ten year period. That, of course, would cripple the U.S. economy, and would cause tremendous dislocation and suffering for untold numbers of Americans, and others as well. But the conferees and others who signed on were apparently quite pleased with that prospect, or stupidly failed to think about what the consequences would be.

Watch the video recording some of the conferees as they eagerly signed onto the bogus petitions. "Good! I'll sign that!" intoned one eager signer when the purpose was specifically outlined.

The other petition, a "Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)" openly demonstrates the abject ignorance of anyone who signed it. The petition calls for the banning, as described by the circulators as the major component of "acid rain." Mind you, that sophomoric gag was the subject of a well known Penn and Teller comedy routine, just a few years back.

But they fell for that one, too! The major component of acid rain is indeed rain, also known as, uhhhhh . . . "water." You know . . . good old H2O?

Watch particularly at the end of the original Penn & Teller video when one of the signers has it explained to him that he just inked his "John Hancock" on a petition calling for the banning of water.

That poor guy still has to be smarting from the original publication of the clip, way back in 2006! And here it is to haunt him once again.

NJ Dems Talking Tax Cuts For Business

2010-12-06T12:30:00.013-05:00

12/06/2010 The focus of politics too often turns to single issues that are seen in isolation, variously as personal victories or defeats for their proponents.

Changing attitudes, however, and thereby the agenda, is arguably the distinction with a real difference!

Watch below for the first sign that the Democrats, who currently control both houses of the New Jersey Legislature, may well have taken an attitude adjustment message away from the most recent election one month ago. We'll see how long it lasts!

Governor Chris Christie makes the point:

Is AOL Playing 2012 Politics Already?

2010-11-06T12:22:00.023-04:00

11/06/2010 -- Anyone who has any AOL account, is fully aware of the strong left-leaning character of the political coverage on their linked news stories . . . that is when they are not covering some insipid opinion or other, blurted out by some stupid hollywood celebrity! AOL "news" coverage can really be quite pathetic.

But is is possible that AOL is actively playing Democrat politics already -- just post mid-term elections? Just check the following photo montage AOL posted this morning on their face page, one that is intended to greet the millions of Americans having AOL as their e-mail service!

Bear in mind that CNN has just released a poll (ht: Ed Morrissey at HotAir) indicating that, as of today, two of the three most well known 2012 Republican hopefuls, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, would defeat Barack Obama. Only Sarah Palin would lose to Mr. Obama, according to the CNN poll. So, for the left and their acolytes in the media, perhaps it's become time to back off all the Sarah Palin bashing, and to begin unloading on both Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney! By the way, AOL was well aware of the poll.

According to the CNN poll:

"Looking ahead to 2012, it may be too early to count Barack Obama out, particularly if Sarah Palin is his opponent," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The former Alaska governor gets a lot of attention, but she is in third place when Republicans are asked to pick a presidential nominee, and in a hypothetical matchup with Obama she is arguably the weakest candidate of the top-tier GOP hopefuls."

The poll itself addressed several others as well, including Newt Gingrich. According to CNN, Gingrich too would fare better than Sarah Palin against the President. But the photo montage just cited those "top three" Republican hopefuls. Here is the AP/Getty photo posted by AOL today.

Get the sense that the AOL photo editor would like to negatively affect any chance of either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee growing in popularity and thereby being more likely to garner the nomination?

And, do you have any doubt something like that was a factor in the photos chosen to be posted together? I don't.

The Huckabee photo is terrible. It looks like he just had been told he failed an IQ test, for crying out loud! It takes real work to dig out a photo from the files that is that negative. Normally, this sort of selection represents the work of a partisan campaign consultant putting together a negative mailer meant to utterly ridicule the person or persons.

And Mitt Romney looks like he'd been holding his breath for several minutes, and just that second let the air out! Again, it took some real search time for the editor to come up with a photo that bad looking. Romney is normally a very photogenic person. It again looks like a selection made by a negative campaign consultant, not an ostensibly neutral media organization.

So, it sure looks to me like whoever did this editorial work, at this point wants Palin to get the nomination.

But it doesn't look to me like it was a Palin fan who made the choice. It is not the work of someone who wants her to actually be elected, mind you . . . just someone who wants her to win the Republican nomination.

The motive seems to have been trashing the two with, as of today, (according to the CNN poll) the best chance of beating Obama in 2012.

After all, Barack Obama's photo looks just fine. Presidential, even.

2010-11-01T19:30:00.001-04:00

A Tale of NJ Take-Over Targets: NJ 3rd, 12th & 6th CDs:
Contrasting Races Are the Best GOP Hopes in NJ

11/02/2010 -- There are now unmistakable signs that at least two and possibly three current Democrat Congressional districts are in play here in hitherto blue New Jersey -- the NJ 3rd, the NJ 12 th and the NJ 6th -- are now very much up for grabs, raising Republican hopes for possible victories by Jon Runyan in the 3rd, Scott Sipprelle in the 12th and feisty Anna Little in the 6th.

All three are currently Democrat-held districts that have been Republican targets this year. But until recently, two of them had been feared by some Republicans as likely to end up being Democrat holds. The formerly Republican 3rd, however, has smelled vulnerable all season.

Republican Jon Runyan was tied or ahead in the last polls there, and he looks like a winner.

While all three of those district races are now suddenly very much in play, the contrast in the character and tone of the races could not be more stark.

For some time, the race in the 12th between Scott Sipprelle and Rush Holt had come across as a polite-fest, not a bumbling Alphonse and Gaston style exchange mind you, but a gentlemanly exchange nevertheless, with the two candidates publicly agreeing to strongly disagree.

There had not been any real heavy or nuclear exchanges at all.

But one of the late breaking characteristics of the race has been a sudden nasty and shrill series of attacks by the hitherto, shall we say blasé Mr. Holt.

In one nasty attack, and utterly lacking a single shread of evidence, Holt accused Mr. Sipprelle of having somehow exerted influence to reduce his property taxes on his Princeton home. The tax assessor heatedly and emphatically reputiated the false charge in a public statement to the press.

There were other baseless attacks launched recently by Holt as well. Common sense suggests those can only have been the result of internal Democrat polls that showed that Sipprelle was right on his ass.

From what I could see, the real strength of the Sipprellle campaign from the beginning has been under the radar. The organization of the campaign has been in their phone bank system, a very highly sophisticated system geared toward targeting soft Ds and independents. The gains have been steady and nearly invisible until recently when the first public poll, a Monmouth poll, showed the two of them only 5 points apart. Polls are somewhat questionable, incidentally, in heavily gerrymandered districts like the NJ 12th CD. The district contains a considerable number of split municipalities in several counties. Because of that, it is very hard to get an accurate read in poll calls going into a municipality.

The South Jersey race for the 3rd District, however, recently erupted into quite a raucus affair, particularly with credible charges of fraud aimed at Democrat, John Adler surrounding the mysterious origins of the candidacy of a bogus Tea Party candidate in the district, one Peter DeStefano. He had no connection to any Tea Party group, and it has recently been revealed that he is bankrupt.

The Star-Ledger, the state's main daily paper had long suspected that Democrat John Adler's campaign underwrote DeStefano from the start in an attempt to siphon a small but sufficient percentage of conservative votes away from Republican challenger Jon Runyan, a sleazy attempt to give Adler the edge in the final tally. The Camden Courier Post, however, got the story several weeks back, both documenting and, via unnamed Democrat operatives, alleging the active promotion and involvement of Adler campaign officials, the Camden County Democrat organization, and even the DCCC, in the creation of the fake Tea Party candidate.

Since then Adler has continued to deny any connection, all credible evidence to the contrary notwithstanding! The purpose of the phony candidacy, according to the paper, was to draw 5% of the vote away from the personally popular Runyan, thus giving Adler a better shot at winning.

Two major newspapers -- The Asbury Park Press and the state's top circulation, Star-Ledger -- have each published editorials openly questioning the credibility of Mr. Adler's denials, and in the case of the Star-Ledger, calling for an investigation by the FEC of allegations the Adler campaign has contributed to the DeDtefano effort, without reporting the contributions on their own filings.

Adler's opponent, Republican Jon Runyan, a former Philadelphia Eagles defensive lineman, has been all over the story, demanding that the Congressman 'fess up and come clean.

The peculiar make-up of the 3rd District should also add to the woes of the Adler count, especially given the publicity of this scandal. Once held by retired former Congressman Jim Saxton, the 3rd Distract currently contains the suburban community of Cherry Hill, the only Camden county municipality in the District, and which accounts for only approximately 20 percent of the population of the District. It is also the home base of Congressman Adler. Camden County is also the home territory of Camden's political boss of bosses, George Norcross. The rest of the district is split between generally more conservative-leaning communities in Burlington and Ocean counties.

While Norcross has succeeded in recent years in pushing his political weight around in the other counties of South Jersey, the heavy exposure of this scandal will likely turn off independent voters and even some Democrats, especially in the two more dominant counties.

In another NJ district -- the previously solid Democrat NJ 6th District -- Republican Anna Little is also drawing closer than usual attention in her challenge of long time Democrat incumbent, Frank Pallone. But as of a few weeks ago, she still trailed the congressman by 12 points according to a Monmouth University poll. Suddenly, the same poll showed her well within striking distance, and her supporters went into overdrive.

The sprawling 12th District, which contains greater or lesser portions of five New Jersey counties, is currently represented by long-term Congressman Rush Holt, tagged by some as the most liberal congressman in the country. He is being challenged this year by Princeton native, Scott Sipprelle, an investment banker who is partially self-funding his campaign. As we noted, it has been a relatively quiet, with both campaigns working small events and the phones to shore up their support. One publicly attended debate was held at Rider University in Lawrence Twp. on the 14th, and another was held in East Brusnwick on the 18th.

A third exchange involve a taped appearance on New Jersey Network’s program, "On the Record," was aired over the October 30th 31st weekend, just prior to today's election.

Until a few weeks ago, the course of that race was a mystery to all but very close insiders, as no public polls had surfaced in the media. The Monmouth University poll cited above, and posted on Real Clear Politics, showed the previously unknown (in political circles) Scott Sipprelle to be within 5 points of Holt. That has to have come as a jolt to Democrats in general, and to Congressman Holt in particular. A more recent poll showed the race to be an 8 point affair, BUT with Holt still stuck 51%.

In addition, we examined the most recent election result numbers from the 12th District, ones from last year's gubernatorial race (in which Chris Christie upset then-Democrat governor Jon Corzine). Those results were not published at RCP, but they reveal some of the specific vulnerabilities that Holt has in certain key areas and communities within the 12th District.

The heart of the district, especially from the Democrat perspective, is in several Middlesex County towns, ones in which Holt normally prevails rather easily.

But last year, in his surprise victory over incumbent Governor Jon Corzine, Chris Christie won the plurality of votes in those Middlesex towns in the 12th CD.

Chris Christie garnered just over 52% of that vote, to a paltry 41.34% for Corzine. Independent Chris Daggett got 6.3% of the Middleses vote from towns within the 12th CD. And, Christie won the entire Middlesex County vote as well.

The bookends of the 12th District are a Monmouth county portion, coming to within a block of the Atlantic Ocean and a smaller Hunterdon County portion, with several towns along the historic Delaware River, both of which could do well for the Republican candidate this year.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the Mercer County portion will more than likely will end up in the Democrat column, although Scott Sipprelle resides in Princeton, which is in Mercer County. Holt is also from Mercer (Hopewell). And Sipprelle has making some inroads there that have to have Holt on edge -- like securing the enthusiastic endorsement of the City Council President of the City of Trenton, a Democrat!

So, I'm going out on a limb here and, in addition to calling the 3rd for Runyan, I'm calling the 12th for Sipprelle. The reason is his incredible organization. Today he will have a great turnout effort going for him, and the mood her in Jersey is simply anti-incumbent.

Finally, I'm going to say that Anna Little takes out Frank Pallone. The enthusiam has just been too strong in the past few weeks, and the polls have shown a strong last second move toward her and away from him.

Pallone earlier on claimed that the Obamacare Bill was really his bill. He actually said, "This is not Obama’s bill. This isn’t Nancy Pelosi’s bill. This is MY bill."

That was obviously stupid and gratuitous. Thereafter, of course, someone on his staff apparently told him to back off, and he went silent about it. But Anna Little has never let him off the hook, repeatedly reminding voters of his claims to being the father of Obamacare.

2010-08-16T15:10:00.023-04:00

Congressman Rush Holt . . . "Let YOU Be Clear !"

08/14/2010 -- During prepared remarks, President Obama said the following this past Friday, August the 13th, at a Ramadan dinner that was held at the White House . . .

"But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

Also present at that dinner were a mere three Members of Congress.

From the same L.A. Times story, linked above, they were identified as follows:

. . .
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

The Honorable Andre Carson, United States Representative (Indiana 7th)
The Honorable John Conyers, United States Representative (Michigan 14th)
The Honorable Rush Holt, United States Representative (New Jersey 12th)
. . . .
(my emphasis added)

Following strong negative reactions that night and the following morning, the President apparently decided that he was NOT being clear.

He has since backtracked, per Politico:

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there."

Perhaps the best proof that he was indeed backtracking, was the fact that the next day, the White House press spokesman (Bill Burton) felt compelled to publicly deny that the President was in any way backtracking.

Obviously, someone must have thought he was! Otherwise, why would you publicly deny it?

Here was what Burton said in pertinent part:

"Just to be clear, the President is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night."

Burton went on to add that the President was merely speaking from a position of defending a "constitutional principle," and that he was not in any way passing judgment on the wisdom of a local project. So, as for the wisdom of the project, the President is back to voting "present."

Hey, here's a thought . . . maybe Congressman Rush Holt (in whose district I reside) can help to clear things up! As noted above, he was one of only three Members of Congress present at that dinner.

Perhaps he has an opinion of his own to offer on the wisdom of building the Mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero. Congressman?

Who knows . . . perhaps Rush Holt can also help clear up what the President meant when he said what he said on Friday night.

And, perhaps he could also add a comment on why he hasn't said a single word about it since Friday night, even though he was present at that White House dinner. As one of the special insiders in attendance, no doubt he heard all the chit-chat!

Rush Holt . . . "Let YOU Be Clear . . ."

2010-07-10T15:05:00.009-04:00

"But, getting back to me . . ."

With somewhat characteristic understatement, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, Charles Krauthammer, has suggested in his Washington Post column that President Barack Obama may be a bit of a narcissist. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey concurs.

Krauthammer pointedly made his case this way:

It's fine to recognize the achievements of others and be non-chauvinistic about one's country. But Obama's modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply.

It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America's sins and the world's to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the word "I."

And he rather sharply adds that all of this self-focus is really

[n]ot surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies -- both about himself.

Regarding the narcissistic tendencies, Mr. Obama is by no means alone among past, and no doubt future Presidential contenders, or presidents. Moreover, he certainly has not had to rely exclusively on his own press to reinforce what appears at times to be an almost Ptolemaic sense of self esteem on his part! At times, the sickeningly baseless praise coming from some major press figures has actually been quite risible.

What seems to particularly distinguish Obama, according to Krauthammer, is that there also appears to be a very disturbing tendency on the part of this President to make quite disparaging comments about the United States, comments which cumulatively may not sit well at all with the American people. Even Jimmy Carter was out of office before he began his relentless sniping.

Again, Krauthammer nails it:

Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama's modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence -- yet not of his own country's.

As a major columnist and critic, Krauthammer's comments could have the effect of finally nudging open the door to more blunt public criticism of Obama and his agenda by additional folks in the major media, particularly as the nation begins to focus more and more on the mid-term election cycle, and a series of national policy changes that have come up so short.

And that, I suspect, is when the jokes may really begin . . . here's one based on the self-esteem theme:

Q: How does Barack Obama claim to change a light bulb?

A: Simple. He just holds the bulb while the world revolves around him.

(H.T. -- the generic joke was found here. There were several others, but this one, as adapted, seemed to fit best.)

2010-06-18T14:41:00.032-04:00

"This was their finest hour"

June 18, 2010 -- The necessary audacity of the newly-installed Prime Minister Winston Churchill under the circumstances was palpable. He had to make a rallying speech to Parliament, and again to the British nation over the radio in the face of what promised to be an imminent and withering military attack on Great Britain, perhaps one leading to a full scale invasion, if the air war about to be launched against the island nation were to succeed.

Indeed, Churchill really made that speech to the entire Western World, pointedly mentioning therein the consequences to the United States and the New World of a British defeat by the Nazi war machine.

It was just at the beginning of summer . . . on June 18th in 1940, just 70 years ago today. The Battle of Britain was about to commence.

His speech had to be one both projecting and inspiring confidence in the face of recent defeat, a defeat saved from abject humiliation only by the heroic rescue of the British Expeditionary Force and her fleet at Dunkirk. Just 12 days before on June 4th, Churchill had spoken, extolling the virtues of the almost unbelievably successful operation, calling it a "miracle of deliverance." Posterity now also knows it as the Dunkirk spirit.

The evacuation at Dunkirk was nothing short of prodigious, including the legendary contribution of "the little ships."

But Churchill had also told the Parliament on June 4th that:

"we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations."

So, with his speech on June 18th, he was now specifically telling the British people that Great Britain was about to undergo a full-fledged attack from the air by the Nazi war machine. In particular, it would come via the formidable Luftwaffe under the command of Hermann Göring.

A mere five years earlier, on orders from Adolph Hitler, the Luftwaffe had been established in direct violation of the outright ban on German military aviation, as was provided for in the Treaty of Versailles. Prior British and French government reactions to the blatant treaty violations had been both tentative and weak.

Hermann Göring, a World War I ace pilot, had been appointed Minister and Oberbefehlshaber (Supreme Commander) by Adolph Hitler. By 1938, he was promoted by Chancellor Hitler to the rank of first Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) of the Luftwaffe, thereby making him the highest ranking military officer in Germany. In just a few years, therefore, Göring had overseen the production of a huge fleet of what were highly advanced military aircraft. By one year before the Churchill speech, the Luftwaffe was widely recognized everywhere as one of the most powerful air forces anywhere.

Less than a year prior to Churchill's speech, the WW II British Expeditionary Force (BEF) had begun its "operations" in Europe, to little or no effect.

The BEF had been

started in 1938 in readiness for a perceived threat of war after Germany annexed Austria in March 1938 and the claims on the Sudetenland which led to the invasion of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. After the French and British had promised to defend Poland the German invasion began and war was declared on 3 September 1939. (sp corrected)

But no real military actions were taken by the BEF until after the German blitzkrieg and invasion of France was launched on 10 May 1940. Neville Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister on May 10th, and Churchill became the Prime Minister, having been the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Because of the surprise and initial success of the German blitzkrieg, the French Supreme Commander, Maurice Gamelin, was quickly dismissed and replaced by General Weygand. But a few blunders, including tactical failures on the part of Weygand, suddenly left the British and the remaining free forces with their backs to the English Channel. The prospect of losing both the bulk of those forces, and all of their equipment was very real.

Yet, in spite of the miraculous outcome of the evacuation from Dunkirk, the prospects for the British nation remained quite grim. The Germans were about to attack Great Britain with everything they had from the air.

While looking to counter any tendency for despondency, and pointedly illustrating the grave consequence of inaction, Churchill was hoping to undergird that demonstrated resolve of the nation to literally remain intact.

With that background, he delivered his speech to Parliament on June 18th. Here was the end of the speech, as recorded by the BBC.

Here is the link to the BBC School Radio recording.

Transcribed, here also is the peroration of that speech:

What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. The Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war.

If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour.

Scott at Powerline posted some interesting information on that speech earlier today, noting (via one of their regular readers) that The Telegraph has just reported on recently revealed government papers, demonstrating that Prime Minister Churchill "agonized" right up until the last moment over the precise wording of the speech.

Somehow, that just does not seem too hard to imagine!

2010-05-31T06:19:00.050-04:00

These Unknown Twenty-Two and Moore

05/31/2010 -- Set all in a straight row, they rest afield, up over the banks of the Delaware, where the river flows south toward Trenton.

They are neatly framed by a small rock wall. Behind the plain white marble slabs, each bearing a small original American flag* and a service medallion, scattered brush and a line of straight deciduous trees grow as natural backdrop.

UPDATE: Post-ceremony photo.

Just a few feet back from there, the earthen slope then sharply drops down sharply to the water's edge. In spring and summer, berry bushes first flower, then bear red and black fruits that ripen just behind their grave markers, almost as a symbolic offering of sweet remembrance for these twenty-two unknown, and Moore -- Captain James Moore that is.

They were all soldiers true in our then-beleaguered Continental Army. But these few died and were buried there in that beautiful memorial park in rural Pennsylvania, back in December of 1776 -- on Christmas day to be precise. The memorial park itself was constructed and formally dedicated back in 1929. It has a beautiful ground level tableau around the main flagpole, with each wedge bearing the name of one of the original 13 States, and the date on which it joined the Union.

The soldiers' burial in 1776 took place just as their fellow troops were beginning to muster. Washington's Army, having been reinforced during the month of December by General Sullivan leading in the troops of the fortuitously captured Charles Fox, and Horatio Gates having added another several hundred, before heading himself for Philadelphia, the force was now able to move, twenty four hundred strong, along with 18 canons and stores, and were heading for the river crossing at McKonkeys, six miles south that night, and thence on the march to Trenton, and victory.

Barely yards away, the collected Durham boats and rafts all floated past the site that Christmas day, also on their way to McKonkey's. Fresh out of hiding just upstream behind Malta Island, they were set afloat and run through the "horserace" that bypassed Wells Falls. Between the 9th & 14th of December, General Cornwallis had been reconnoitering up and down the area, on the New Jersey side, looking for boats. Obviously, one of his chief objects was to find boats that the Continental Army had used to cross over on December 7th, or any boats, for that matter. He never found any to speak of, and information sent back to England at the time reported that somewhere around what is today New Hope, PA, was where the boats were destroyed.

UPDATE: Looking upriver. Malta Island was near the buildings seen upstream.

Around New Brunswick during the retreat, General Washington had ordered a few troops ahead, to take all the boats to the Pennsylvania side, from all the way up into the Lehigh River, and even down into Delaware Bay. The boats kept and used for the Christmas Crossing where secreted behind Malta Island.

These men, these twenty three men, neither experienced nor heard of that turning victory at Trenton. Nor did they know of Trenton "II," or Princeton a few days later. Just months before, though, they had felt defeat, harsh defeat indeed. First in Brooklyn, and then escaping by boat in the night to New York, they were there when Washington's army was beaten again in the heights of upper Manhattan, what we now call Fort Washington. And again they crossed to escape, this time across the Hudson into New Jersey, where they endured the ensuing and failed struggle for Fort Lee.

And they were also there for the long flight and humiliating retreat across New Jersey, with the British army hard at their heels. The nascent American revolutionary struggle was in the balance.

But they stayed, these men. They did not desert, or head home their enlistments up, as many had. Nor were they enticed by the Loyalist views. They were Patriots. They had fully embraced the cause of liberty, memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, a document they maybe had had read to them but once, and on which the ink seemed barely dry. By the time they crossed in retreat at Trenton on December 7th, scarcely 10 percent of that Continental army marching with Washington remained. But these men were there, perhaps some of them having been wounded, or who were otherwise nursing the first deadly signs of camp fever and sickness that would tragically claim them by Christmas Day.

These men had not just heard of, but had actually lived the words of Thomas Paine, who wrote "The American Crisis," as he travelled along that sad but determined route with them.

Perhaps, just perhaps the stirring pamphleteer had looked into some of their very faces as they trudged along, none of them really knowing if they would ever succeed in throwing off the tyranny of King George and British colonial rule . . . when he began:

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

And they stood by it then, those twenty three men. They died within a month in camp, overcome but unbowed. Patriots all. Perhaps one or more of them had served as sentries in the rain, or signalers from the cold hilltop of Bowman's hill, or were guardians of the boats and caught their death of cold on some damp and sleety December night. We'll never know. A plaque mounted on the nearby Thompson-Neely House, the headquarters for Continental Army Brigadier General Lord Sterling (William Alexander) says that also quartered in that house were Captain William Washington, Lieutenant James Monroe, who would later become our fifth President, and Captain James Moore of the New York Artillery, who died there on Christmas Day, 1776.

Today, Memorial Day, May 31, 2010, we can look back assuredly, with 234 years of history to take into account. We know the great successes and the sometimes shortcomings of our nation. And when we do, we surely have to marvel at the faith of these twenty two unknown soldiers, and Captain Moore. Some of us even want to be able to cry out to them, and thank them for their faith in our future, a faith that caused them to put their lives on the line when times were dark and uncertain. "It's okay. It's okay!" we want to shout out to them.

The papers say that on this day all the men and women in uniform, soldiers who have given their lives for America will be honored, along with these patriots. Really, I sometimes wonder how "honor" got to be a verb. The honor was theirs. It was something in their character. We do not really honor them. They had great honor. And they gave their lives in the service of our nation. So, if anything, they honor us.

All we can really do today is acknowledge it in awe. And remind others.

* * * * *

Dozens of volunteers gave of both their time and money, and helped to restore this wonderful park to at least a decent and presentable condition over the past months. Budget problems in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have left some areas badly overgrown, trees fallen within the manicured areas, and even facilities uncared for, with fences and shutters needing fresh coats of paint, and a few windows broken. This park and that portion downstream where the actual Christmas crossing took place, still need your help.

I'll post the names of contacts.

* The top photo shows the line, just after the grass had been trimmed and before the individual flags were reset with each stone. The morning sun coming off the river can be seen.

2010-05-28T08:02:00.031-04:00

No Time For A High Crime
Co-host Fingers ABC Investigative Reporter Hubby - "Get off of it, Mika!"
Breaking: Did Bill Clinton Make The Offer Via Rahm Emanuel?

05/28/2010 -- In a recent clip from their show, MSNBC co-host of Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski, admits to Joe Scarborough that some of her friends and her husband, Jim Hoffer (an investigative TV news reporter at ABC-TV) have both told her to drop on-air discussions of the circumstances surrounding the offer of a federal job to Joe Sestak, who is now the Democrat candidate for the United States Senate for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by an official of the Obama Administration.

Mika says she she "got hammered" by them, saying to her, "This issue doesn't matter. Let it go. Get off of it, Mika!"

Joe Sestak has insisted that the offer was indeed made to get him to drop out of the Democrat primary race against Arlen Spector for the nomination. As reported by Politico, Sestak reconfirmed that recently during an appearance on Meet the Press. But Sestak will not say who the Obama Administration official was who made that offer. It is a federal crime to make a job offer to someone to affect the outcome of an election.

Curiously, Mr. Hoffer's reportorial investigative instincts have even led, in the recent past, to his brief detention by county shreiff's officers for refusing to back off from an interview of a County Executive in Rockland County, NY. It seems that Mr. Hoffer was persisting in pursuing additional information regarding why the county had

"filed a notice of claim seeking [Medicaid reimbursement] money from the estate of a nun, who died when an unbolted closet toppled onto her in the county-run Summit Park nursing home."

But, when it comes to the federal crime of bribery, at least according to Mika Brzezinski, her husband Mr. Hoffer told her Ix-nay on the offer!

Here is the Newsbusters coverage where we found the clip, above, and where they aimed their primary focus on Joe Scarborough's funny quip that the mainstream media would not follow the Sestak story even

"if Rahm Emanuel announced it in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue wearing nothing but a Speedo and that very nautical dress."

Well, that was obviously more visual suggestion than most people would care for! But the point is well taken! We certainly know now what a certain investigative reporter for ABC-News would do with the story!

It took his wife "diming him" on air, but when an investigative reporter for ABC-TV could care less about what would be a high crime committed by a high Obama Administration official, you've got to think that we're all in a little jeopardy.

And, by the way, can you imagine the off-air cell call Mika must have received from hubby Jimbo the minute he found out that she had "outed" him that way?

"What the . . . !"

Heh!

Again, as noted at Politico, Sestak continued to refuse to identify the person who made the offer. Said he:

"I was offered a job, and I answered that," Sestak said. "Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about."

Breaking: And now, according to Greg Sargent at the Washington Post Plum Line, former President Bill Clinton was tasked through Rahm Emanuel to make the job overture to Sestak.

Here we go!

2010-05-18T21:26:00.047-04:00

Separated at Birth?

May 18, 2010 (date corrected) -- Uncanny!

AP photo, printed in Fox News story, here.

From AP photo, printed in Star-Ledger blog, here.

UPDATE: May 19, 2010 -- Here is a comment from the thread of a post by AllahPundit at Hot Air on the topic.

"What’s the difference between Blumenthal and Jane Fonda? —- Fonda has actually been to Vietnam."

diogenes on May 18, 2010 at 6:47 PM

2010-05-06T11:42:00.011-04:00

Coulter: SmokeBusters + The NYPD -- Saved Again!

05/06/2010 -- Ann Coulter's column this week (fr. Townhall) is just plain priceless.

I honestly can't stop laughing. Maybe I should try crying, which under the circumstances would be an entirely appropriate response as well because . . . it's all true!

The only deserving public official I can think of who she did not nail was Mayor Michael Bloomberg of NYC.

Maybe Ann thinks he was indeed "playing" Katie Couric with his idle speculation three hours before the guy was caught that this attempted bombing right in the Times Square area, may well have been done by someone who was opposed to the healthcare bill!

Here's a sample from Ann's column:

. . . [I]t would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president's entire national security strategy didn't depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger's crotch.

But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!

If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.

The administration's fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama's earlier and less successful "Let's Make Them Love Us!" plan.
. . . .

The column is definitely worth a full read. That way, you too can have a good laugh . . . and a cry to boot!

2010-05-04T10:52:00.043-04:00

Did CBS Anchor Katie Couric Get Pwned By Bloomberg?
Either way, I Want That 25 Cents, Mayor!

(Updates: below)
05/04/2010 -- Just on face value, it is difficult to figure out who was the biggest public fool leading up to the identity of the Times Square car bomber.

Consider Nominee Number One: Mayor Bloomberg of New York, late last evening, engaged in some idle and off-the-air conjecture with CBS News anchor, Katie Couric, telling her that the person who attempted to set off a car bomb in the middle of the Times Square area this past Saturday night, could well be a domestic terrorist, a loner, someone who was likely angry at the government, maybe even someone who opposed the health care bill!

Apparently the only thing Bloomberg did NOT quite tell Katie Couric was that the guy could just as well have been on his way back from a Tea Party rally when he decided to park his vehicle and detonate the propane, gasoline and firecracker car bomb right at the curb outside a Viacom building on 45th Street in New York City. But he certainly implied it!

Consider Nominee Number Two: That would be CBS ace anchor, Katie Couric, who breathlessly lapped up all of the Mayor’s idle chatter, and then quickly contributed to the CBS News reporting about this so-called "domestic loner" nonsense late yesterday evening.

The CBS story was filed at 8:50 pm. Of course, two and a half hours later, at 11:30 pm, the feds instead picked up a 30 year old Pakistani-born individual named Faisal Shahzad by literally plucking him off a flight at JFK, a man, by the way, with strong family and other ties in Pakistan, who was apparently attempting to flee the country and return there, via Dubai.

In the case of Couric, also consider the fact that the car bomb, the one that thankfully did NOT go off and kill or injure scores of Americans, had been intentionally parked right on the south side of 45th Street, next to the corner of Broadway. Indeed, it was parked at the curb, just outside of a Viacom building!

Viacom, of course, is the parent company of CBS News. One might think that CBS would have had a special interest in wanting to get that story right, no? Well, guess again! There are several false "money lines" from yesterday evening’s CBS story, the one entitled, "Mayor: Times Square Suspect Acted Alone." Here are a few of them:

Bloomberg later told CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric that the suspect behind the bombing attempt could be a domestic terrorist angry at the government who acted alone.

"If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything," he said.

"There is no evidence here of a conspiracy, there is no evidence that it's tied into anything else. It looks like an amateurish job done by at least one person," he told Couric.

As of this morning, we all NOW know, the actual suspect in the case is one Faisal Shahzad, who was residing in an apartment in Bridgeport, Connecticut, who, as now reported by the AP, only this past year (in April 2009) became a U.S. citizen, per a story filed today by Tom Hays and Colleen Long. He was born in Pakistan, and still has strong family ties (including his wife) in the City of Karachi, Pakistan. In fact, he apparently had just last year returned from a five month trip to Pakistan, according to several reports.

As indicated above, late yesterday night, Shahzad was caught fleeing this country. Just caught, too . . . reportedly, he had actually already boarded a flight to Dubai at JFK when he was nabbed last evening. His eventual flight destination was apparently Pakistan.

Not exactly your garden variety Tea Party participant, as Mayor Bloomberg and Couric would have had us believing last night! Of course, we don’t know all the facts in the case yet, as the Washington Post failed to report any specifics on what international ties Shahzad had, and to what organizations, religious or otherwise.

Was he tied to any known Islamist terror groups, for example? Time Magazine is now reporting, based on Pakistani anonymous sources, that he may well have been and that he may have even attended terror training just last spring, right around the time his U.S. citizenship was coming through! Was he, accordingly, on anyone's radar? The fact that he got on the plane last night suggests that he was not on a "no fly list" though we know that may certainly not be dispositive! Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called "Christmas Bomber" was on the "no fly list."

But earlier this morning the Washington Post did report facts directly contradicting the CBS fantasy . . . i.e., lots of clues suggesting a possible terror plot:

Officials located Shahzad after a sweeping two-day investigation that yielded what senior Obama administration officials described as a flood of international and domestic clues suggesting a plot involving more than one person.

So, they apparently were not keeping Mike Bloomberg in the loop on any level! But that still would not account for Bloomberg having firmly come to the exact opposite conclusion –- i.e., that the guy was a loner, that there was absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy, and that -- who knows -- it might be related to opposition to the healthcare bill!

But Mike Allen at Politico is also reporting today that the top Obama officials had identified and were specifically hot on the trail of Mr. Shahzad by early afternoon (2:30 pm) yesterday, at least six hours prior to the CBS report, when Bloomberg implied to Couric that it might well be a loner opponent of the healthcare bill! Politico also suggested how the bomber had tried to cover his tracks.

The vehicle identification number had been removed from the bomb-laden 1993 Nissan Pathfinder left in Times Square. But investigators were able to lift it from a second location on the vehicle, and used that to track down a Connecticut man who said he had sold the Pathfinder for cash about three weeks ago.

The man had offered the vehicle on Craigslist, and FBI agents were able to recover the number from a disposable cellphone that had been used by the buyer.

The suspect didn't still have the phone. But using a lot of technology and access to database, agents located the suspect.

(Gee, that last sentence certainly could cover a multitude of possibilities, now couldn't it?)

Anyway, if pressed to pick the biggest fool here, I'd have to go with Couric. Why? Because there is at least a possibility Bloomberg was intentionally feeding her this bogus information so that it would signal Faisal Shahzad, and maybe any possible confederates, that the cops were still hot on a false trail. Possible.

That would clearly place Bloomberg in a category significantly different than "fool" . . . not a nice category, to be sure. But different.

If so, he should explain that, and immediately apologize to all opponents of the healthcare bill.

If not, he should explain that, and immediately apologize to all opponents of the healthcare bill.

And, while the investigators are at it, they should certainly all apologize to the poor white guy they targeted with the video clip, the one who fortuitously decided to remove his outer shirt on the street in New York because it was too hot!

There are probably still some Obamabot posse types still out there still reviewing that taped clip and trying to hunt that guy down!

The supporters of the Administration certainly cannot be happy with this latest turn of events -- yet another possible instance of undetected terrorism, one with possible foreign ties, unfolding right within our shores during the Obama Administration. And again --as back in December -- only quick action by local citizens may have avoided a disaster. Here was the WaPo description:

Administration officials said President Obama had been repeatedly briefed on the incident -- which authorities said could have led to significant casualties if the explosives had detonated properly -- since it began unfolding Saturday night. It bore some resemblance to the attempted bombing of an airliner in Detroit last Christmas, with citizen watchdogs earning much of the credit for averting the crisis and the White House scrambling to discover clues about a young male suspect with apparent ties that stretched beyond the United States.

And -- they might have added -- this time the Administration must really feel come heat because the terrorists have apparently headed back to downtown New York!

As for Mayor Bloomberg, the AP story specifically reports he is now right back out there busily protecting the reputation of all Muslims today.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the arrest should not be as used as an excuse for anti-Muslim actions. "We will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers," he said.

Of course, as for Tea Party members or any other opponents of the healthcare bill . . . well, not so much!

So, if Mayor Bloomberg was not the biggest fool over this incident, he is certainly proving to be the biggest jerk about it!

Update: Newsbusters is onto the Bloomberg/Couric angle of the story as well, with both audio and video.

Update : II Newsbusters is also reporting that Contessa Brewer is publicly lamenting that the Times Square Car Bomber is someone who was originally from an Islamic country. Is she trying to become Nominee Number Three for fool of the day? That really has to be a separate category, because she actually made that stupid comment after the identification was made! She wasn't just publicly hoping it was a healthcare opponent!

2010-04-27T16:33:00.013-04:00

NY Post Reports Obama Spoke To Blago Re: Senate Seat
Obama Publicly Denied any Contact at The Time

April 27, 2010 -- The New York Post, per an article by Charles Hurt, notes that "secret" papers filed in by former Governor Rod Blagojevich and inadvertently made public, reveal that he and then-Senator Barack Obama indeed had a conversation at the time of Obama's election to the Presidency. But just one week later, Obama -- in responding to reporters' questions during a public meeting with Al Gore and Joe Biden -- specifically denied he had ever had a conversation with then-Governor Blagojevich about filling his about to be vacated Senate seat.

WASHINGTON -- Sections of court papers filed by scandal-scarred former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich that were mistakenly made public show a deeper involvement by President Obama in picking his Senate successor and call into question the president's public statements on the case.

According to passages in the papers filed Thursday by Blagojevich's lawyers -- which were blacked out under a judge's order but made visible by a computer glitch -- Obama, then president-elect, spoke directly to the disgraced governor on Dec. 1, 2000.

But just one week later -- on the day Blagojevich was indicted -- Obama told reporters flatly, "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so we were not -- I was not aware of what was happening."
. . . .

Check the Fox News video on YouTube containing that quote. (ht, Newsalert, found here, posted by radiovice.)

He was holding a press event with Al Gore and Joe Biden when the questions came up. His specific response about no contact whatsoever with Blago comes at about 3:02 minutes into the clip, or so.

In fact, you'll note that Mr. Obama went out of his way to deny having had any contact with Blago! As the reporters were firing questions, he interjected as follows:

"Hold on, hold on, hold ... hold on a second guys ... I'll just answer this one question. Uh ... I had no contact with the Governor, uh ... or his office, and so we were not ... I was not aware of uh ... what was happening. And, as I said, it's a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that I don't think it's appropriate to comment. Okay?"

(You may have to jigger just a bit with the progress bar on the time line to get it to load past 2:39, but it will load and play the key portion of the clip if you click your cursor at just before the 3:00 minute mark.)

Ooooops!

According to the article by Charles Hurt,

"[t]he allegation is just one of a host of thorny claims about Obama that were apparently inadvertently revealed when a blogger found it was possible to read the redacted lines by simply copying and pasting them into a regular text file."

Given these developments, it's even more understandable why the White House is refusing comment on the case.

2010-04-25T15:33:00.014-04:00

"We'll Remember ... In November"

April 24, 2010 -- A hard hitting ad prepared by the Republican Governors Association.

Hey . . . it's not like you couldn't see this one coming!

We Will Remember from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

2010-04-18T12:57:00.029-04:00

Maxine Waters: Shocked by Vulgar Tea-Partiers!
Unlike Maxine When She Was Publicly Calling Bush A "Liar!"

04/18/2010 -- Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California once again demonstrates why hypocrisy is ever so near and dear to the wire-pullers of the Democrat party. Shocked, shocked the poor lady claims to be, by both the turned up volume of protesters, and by the Republican encouragement of them!

She seems to forget just a few years back when she was personally attending Code Pink rallies, calling them the "real" patriots, endorsing their rabid agenda, and publicly calling the President a "liar" in their presence.

Naked Emperor News has the clip juxtaposing her words now, with her words and actions then, (ht, Briebart.tv, here):

Here is the video clip, posted at Real Clear Politics, of the MSNBC interview segment on Morning Joe by Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC who, as you can see, barely challenges any of the outrageous comments of the Congresswoman as she spewed this blatant rubbish.

MSNBC and NBC anchors have researchers. Mika Brzezinski knew. All she would have had to do was ask the Congresswoman something like this:

"But Congresswoman, you stood up in front of a Code Pink rally, microphone in hand, and you said that the President of the United States, George Bush, was a "liar." You personally called him that name. Please explain to our audience how that was any less offensive, or even equal to what you are now complaining about when it comes to Republican members having encouraged the Tea Party protesters?"

Perhaps someday Mika may actually work up the nerve to ask such a question. And, perhaps someday, pigs will sprout those wings that the Walrus was so curious about!

2010-04-08T22:44:00.025-04:00

Sipprelle Wins Hunterdon Congressional Endorsement

April 8, 2010 -- Businessman Scott Sipprelle of Princeton, was declared the "overwhelming" victor by Hunterdon County Chairman Henry Kuhl, following the balloting on Thursday night of the party faithful at the New Jersey county's Republican Convention held in Flemington.

The preferential vote he won was for the official party endorsement of the town-by-town members of the county committee -- officially making him their candidate for the portion of Hunterdon that is situated in New Jersey's 12th Congressional District, a portion of which includes several mostly river towns in the lower portion of Hunterdon County. As was expected, 7th District incumbent Congressman, Leonard Lance, also won the party endorsement for the remaining portions of Hunterdon County.

This was the 5th straight county convention victory for Sipprelle, an independent investment banker who has not previously run for political office. Yet, he had won all prior party faithful endorsements in recent contests in the other NJ counties represented in the sprawling, almost dragon-shaped New Jersey district.

The 12th Congressional District literally cuts completely across the center of the state, from several Delaware River towns in both Mercer and Hunterdon counties, then running east and north of I-195, it runs all the way to where it reaches within the salt air scent and "across the street" eyesight of the Atlantic Ocean in Rumson.

Thus, in addition to the Hunterdon towns of both East and West Amwell, Lambertville, Stockton, Delaware, Kingwood, Frenchtown and Franklin, the 12th District also includes portions of the counties of Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, and a portion of Franklin Twp. in Somerset County.

Here is a map of the district.

In Mercer County, the 12th includes Hopewell, Ewing, Lawrenceville, and Princeton, and a portion of Trenton, while the Middlesex towns of Plainsboro, Jamesburg, Monroe, North, South and East Brunswick, Spotsboro, and portions of Old Bridge, among others, are also included in the district. Monmouth County towns include Eatontown, Englishtown, Little Silver, Rumson, Little Silver, Tinton Falls, both Shrewsbury and Shrewsbury Township, Fair Haven, Homdel, and portions of Manalapan, Marlboro, Middletown and Freehold.

Thursday night's Hunterdon GOP party plebiscite was held at the American Legion Hall on Route 31 in Flemington. Sipprelle's clean sweep of the county endorsements should now easily make him the prohibitive favorite to win the party primary vote in the Tuesday, June 8th Primary Election.

A primary victory would then set him up for a fall campaign against Democrat incumbent 12th District Congressman, Rush Holt for this year's November 2d election. Sipprelle's most formidable Republican primary opponent, Fair Haven (Monmouth County) Mayor Mike Halfacre, recently withdrew from the race, and graciously endorsed Sipprelle.

Anticipating a primary victory, Sipprelle has already challenged Congressman Holt to a debate on healthcare, and has posted his first political ad of the race.

In addition to Holt's consistent votes for the elements of the Obama agenda, including his enthusiastic support for the recent healthcare bill, Holt has taken other positions that may make him vulnerable in November, including voting to protect the granting of federal taxpayer support for the highly controversial organization, ACORN, based on Holt's assertion that that "defunding" them constituted an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.

2010-04-01T21:35:00.022-04:00

Freedom Is . . . In Our Code

04/01/2010 -- Here is a uniquely 21st Century way to describe human freedom, from a young woman who has had the courage to openly declare it to the world, in the face of a horrifying political system that has systematically propagated, and cruelly imposed the exact opposite on her people for half a century now!

And yet, she just said the following:

-- "Por suerte, como si se tratara de un virus incurable, la libertad está inscrita en el código del género humano."

-- "Fortunately, as if it were an incurable virus, freedom is written into the code of the human race."

-- Yoani Sánchez, Cuban blogger*

Because she is only 37 years old, one can say without contradiction, that Fidel Castro and communism, and now the ongoing communist regime of his brother Raul, have had an unrelenting choke hold on Cuba, fully 13 years longer than she has even been alive!

So . . . the communists and all their little apparatchiks too, must be wondering, "Where does this come from?"

Simple. It's written in the code.

* The photo is from TIME, one that is featured on her Twitter account, here.

2010-03-24T10:27:00.047-04:00

Congressman John Dingell Blurts:
Takes a long time to control the people, sez he!

03-24-2010 -- In the last post here, entitled "All About Control", I cited the observation of the left-wing blog, Talking Points Memo (TPM) for the fact that the White House final "talking points" made it very clear that the operative word, and the operative concept contained in their healthcare initiative was "control".
Indeed it was. And is.

Ed Morrissey of HotAir has since posted about a comment by longtime Congressman John Dingell of Michigan, including having posted the following podcast clip on YouTube.

It is a portion of a post-passage radio interview of Congressman Dingell by WJR, 760 AM radio host, Paul W. Smith, who asked Dingell about all those who Dingell presumptively claimed would "die" between now and 2014, as a result of ObamaCare not taking effect prior to then. According to Dingell's numbers, 72,000 Americans would die before ObamaCare takes effect in 2014!

Dingell's answer was a real chiller. Here it is (my emphasis):

" . . . but let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."

Now, Ed calls that "control the people" comment a Freudian slip -- one in which Dingell unwittingly told the truth.

The characterization does make sense, as the remainder of the clip makes it clear that the Congressman is quite a liar, especially when he added,

"You know, our Republicans have spent a long time not participating, not helping, carping and delaying, but at the same time they have contributed nothing to this and made no offers whatsoever at to what it is they want or what they stand for."

What rubbish! Even the President acknowledged that the Republicans had a number of good healthcare reform suggestions which they offered when he held his P.R. summit a few weeks ago, in order to take a last-second stab at garnering some GOP support for the measure. Notably, the key specific measures he said at the time might be worthy additions to the legislation were summarily excluded by the Democrats from inclusion in the reconciliation bill -- such as medical malpractice reform.

And here, for example, is a good exchange in the House Rules Committee between Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, ((R-WI), and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) on Ryan's specific proposal for healthcare reform in the contest of a necessary Medicare fix that will be occasioned by the ObamaCare legislation. She, of the ultimately still-born "let's deem it passed" gambit, does her level best to try to interrupt and to talk over Ryan, but is simply no match for him.

Nor is Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-CA), or Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), both of whom she then called on for a political assist in the exchange. They can't even touch Ryan with a three-person tag-team!

Getting back to the Dingell blurt . . . call me cynical, but I say the proper way to qualify Congressman Dingell's "control" comment as "truthful" and, therefore, admissible in the court of public opinion -- amid all of his obvious prevaricating -- would be to properly identify it as an admission against interest. He won't repeat it, or admit the truth of it.

Let's just hope the public duly responds with, "So ordered!" come this November.

Only disgraced and impeached former federal judges, like Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), would dare to go that far!

You may recall that Hastings was the guy Nancy Pelosi wanted to put in charge of the House Intelligence Committee, before the public firestorm of opposition finally put an end to the effort. Someone apparently reminded her that she has voted for Hastings' impeachment!

But as John at Powerline points out, the public is not necessarily as aware as some might think of just how completely out-of-control certain Members of Congress really are!

We have to take the time.

2010-03-17T13:08:00.019-04:00

All About Control
Au revoir, accountability

UPDATE: below:
03 - 17 - 2010: Talking Points Memo (TPM), a left-leaning blog, has a post up as of yesterday morning, with a link to the Obama White House "final talking points" on the healthcare legislation currently pending in the House of Representatives. The post there is entitled, "White House Releases Final Talking Points: Reform Good For Average Person, GOP Good For Average Insurer," a post written by Christina Bellantoni.

One of the curious attributes Bellantoni takes express note of in her post, is the repeated use of the word "control" in the Administration's talking points.

Says she:

The word "control" appears several times in the talking points, and one line was repeated almost world [sic] for word in Obama's health care speech in Ohio yesterday.

"Now, I don't believe we should give the government or insurance companies more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give you, the American people, more control over your own health insurance," Obama said, in a close paraphrase of what the White House suggested members should say.

Interesting. It is especially since most Americans now believe that the real object of the Obama healthcare legislation is to give the federal government control over healthcare, and that premium costs will rise. The much touted accountability claims now seem completely inoperative. How else to account for the unpopularity of the bills? Even the Associated Press is now reporting that premiums will go up under ObamaCare! Ed Morrissey at HotAir now links new studies predicting ObamaCare will be a big jobs killer.

In fact, the current legislation is so wildly and increasingly unpopular that Democrats in the House of Representatives are pondering the use of a highly controversial and sneaky legislative tactic that would permit them, as reported in the Washington Post, to actually avoid taking a roll-call vote on the Senate Bill itself.

The tactic, called the "self-executing rule" is now being dubbed the "Slaughterhouse tactic," because Congresswoman Louise Slaughterhouse (D-NY) is reportedly the one who suggested using it. Having published the original extensive article -- "House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it," by Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane, the WaPo, is now editorializing against the use of the tactic, calling it "dodgy."

The rule, which has been used very sparingly in the past, would instead allow the House to take only one vote -- on the reconciliation rule resolution -- and would, therefore, permit the Democrat members to claim they never voted for the Senate Bill, even though they have to pass that bill in order to advance the reconciliation process they currently favor. Various commentators have opined on the questionable political use of the tactic, including Mark Tapscott at The Examiner, here, Cornell Law School assistant clinical professor, William A. Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion here, Ed Morrissey at HotAir here, and, some have as well opined on the constitutionality of the tactic, especially given the enormous scope of the healthcare legislation, including Andy McCarthy at NRO, here, and Michael W. McConnell in the Wall Street Journal, here (subscription. req.)(ht: Ed at HotAir). Prof. Jacobson also posted a helpful update link over to this "plain English" discussion of the constitutionality issue at Politico.

The bottom line, in essence, seems to be that the House is proposing use of a "secret ballot" for the House Democrat membership on the passage of the Senate Bill.

Gee, one wonders, how is that giving "the people" control over their own healthcare? That sounds more like the House is impermissibly grabbing for control over the healthcare vote by employing a "secret ballot" tactic.

And, a few Democrats are beginning to speak out against the use of that back-handed maneuver:

For example, consider the views of Democrat Congressman Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania's 4th District, a suburban and rural district lying north and east of Pittsburgh. Congressman Atmire says that one of the things he hears about most from his constituents, is their unhappiness with the process. He even told Fox News that, in general, they do not like the "reconciliation" process, and with regard to a specific question on the "Slaughterhouse Rule" itself, Atmire said that, as for

"the self-implementing rule that you're talking about, where you wouldn't have a formal vote on maybe the most important policy of the past forty years, I have a big issue with the way they're doing the process. I think it's wrong and my constituents don't like it."

Meanwhile, Roll Call is reporting that Senator Blanche Lincoln, (D-Arkansas) actually is using the issue politically against her primary opponent, challenging Lt. Gov. Bill Halter to join her in criticizing the sneaky maneuver, noting that Halter had called for "more accountability in Washington" and adding that "the House should vote on the Senate health bill under normal rules."

So, maybe the reason the Obama Administration keeps using the work "control" in their talking points, is because control seems to be such a huge element of the thrust of their agenda, including healthcare, and even including the use of the underhanded "Slaughterhouse" tactic.

Consider the following surface inconsistency.

As we all know, one of the primary elements of the Obama legislative agenda is the adoption of "card check" legislation which would eliminate the "secret ballot" for rank-and-file workers. Eliminating the secret ballot opens the door for intimidation, and therefore gives union bosses much greater "control" over union elections.

But when it comes to House Members, Pelosi now wants to allow the Democrat members to employ a "secret ballot" maneuver to avoid voting on the Senate Bill!

Here is how Speaker Pelosi put it herself in describing her preference for using the trick vote:

"But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

In other words, the Democrat members of the House will get to "declare" that the Senate Bill passed, without ever voting on the bill itself! And Pelosi believes it will give her greater control over an obviously antsy caucus, one that she is losing control of in her attempts to get the healthcare legislation over the final hurdles.

It seems that the only real way to reconcile all of this, would be to recognize that the Obama agenda is really all about "trickle-down control."

The Democrat Party is simply not the party of the average person, as the Obama talking points now laughably claim.

It has instead become the party of statist control.

UPDATE: More here from Bloomberg news, "Pelosi Tactic for Health-Care Vote Would Raise Legal Questions," by Greg Stohr, including an indication that one group will file suit if the tactic is used.

"The Landmark Legal Foundation, a Leesburg, Virginia-based organization that supports limited government, will sue to stop the health-care plan if the House uses the procedure, Mark R. Levin,
president of the group, said on its Web site."

2010-02-25T14:16:00.019-05:00

Raúl Castro Sends His Regrets: But For What?

02/25/2010 -- You really have to wonder about the motivation – or, lack thereof – underscoring a story out of Cuba, a story running exactly one line in length.

Here is the Reuters dispatch, in its entirety:

Cuban President Raul Castro expressed regret Wednesday over the death of a leading dissident in a prison hunger strike, an official statement said.

Not much context there.

Who was this leading dissident, named Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a 42 year old man who has been in prison for years?

Why was he in prison? Why was he engaged in a hunger strike?

The Miami Herald story by Juan O. Tamayo adds considerable context to this sad tale:

Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a 42-year-old plumber and bricklayer, stopped eating solid food Dec. 3 to protest what he described as repeated beatings by guards and many other abuses at his Kilo 7 prison in the eastern province of Camagüey.

Active in several dissident organizations, he had been arrested in 2003 amid a government crackdown that sentenced 75 government critics to lengthy prison terms, and Amnesty International declared him a "prisoner of conscience."

Initially charged with contempt, public disorder and "disobedience" and sentenced to three years, he was convicted of other acts of defiance while in prison, and by the time of his death faced a total of 36 years in prison.

So, more to the curious point addressed in the single line of that Reuter's dispatch, above, for exactly what reason did Raul Castro express regret?

Raúl Castro, the 78 year old younger brother of long-time Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, has effectively been the dictator in charge in communist Cuba since Fidel's illness in the summer of 2006.

One wonders if his "regret" could be over the fact that the nation he currently leads detains and imprisons people for voicing criticism of the central government – as it has always done?

Of course not.

Was it that he regretted that Mr. Tamayo was beaten while in prison?

Of course not.

The Cuban government not only beats prisoners jailed for political control reasons, it even sends out its State Security thugs to exact official revenge on its own people, right in the streets of the island nation. They seek out and beat people for merely speaking out, or even just attending rallies!

Just this past November, they kidnapped and physically beat a courageous young woman blogger by the name of Yoani Sánchez who posts her blog, "Generación Y" on the portal, "Desde Cuba". As she thereafter posted back in November, the State Security thugs rounded her and two other friends up, threw them in cars, and she and her friend Rinaldo were subjected to a severe beating.

Thereafter -- a few days later -- Yoani turned the tables on the thugs and she actually took photos of them as they were officially hanging around her home spying on her, and she posted their photos on her blog. That took a special kind of courage that none of us will likely ever be able to display.

As for the events surrounding the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, here is how Mr. Castro’s comments were reported in The Times (of London) in a story entitled, Death of dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo leads to clampdown in Cuba:

Raúl Castro, the Cuban President, issued an unprecedented statement expressing regret for the death of a dissident. "Raúl Castro laments the death of Cuban prisoner Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who died after conducting a hunger strike," he said.

The night of Tamayo's death, Yoani Sánchez traveled to the location where the autopsy of Mr. Tamayo was being conducted, and she spoke to his grieving mother, giving her the opportunity to make a statement for the record.

Here was what Reina Luisa Tamayo Dangier said (it is in Spanish, and the video quality is unfortunately poor because of the lighting).

Yoani published the full translation on her site, from which it is clear that Tamayo's mother obviously wanted to encourage people to attend her son's wake, and that she believed he was murdered. She said in part:

. . .

"We will leave for Banes, Holguin Province, Embarcadero road, house number six, where we will hold the wake before our family altar, at my home, for as long as required.

I want to tell the world about my pain. I think my son’s death was a premeditated murder. My son was tortured throughout his incarceration. His plight has brought me great pain and has been excruciating for the entire family. Even, as he was transferred to this prison, he was first held in Camaguey without drinking water for 18 days. My son dies after an 86-day hunger strike. He is another Pedro Boitel for Cuba.

. . . ."

Having posted the video of Reina Luisa Tamayo Dangier's comments regarding her son's death on February 23rd, it seems a bit unusual that Yoani Sánchez has since gone silent. Hopefully she will post more information soon.

As for Raúl Castro, do not hold your breath for any further explanation about what he regrets. But I think we can rest assured that it had nothing to do with what he and his brother should be regretting -- such as putting people in jail for years for disagreeing with the government, or for "disobedience!" What he should regret, but never will, is the horror they have wrought on this island nation and its people over the past half a century!

2010-01-22T10:58:00.020-05:00

John Coleman Speaks

01/22/2010: You might recognize John Coleman, a former TV weather man out of Chicago, who went on to became the original TV meteorologist on ABC's Good Morning America when it debuted back in 1975. He hung his hat with that highly-rated show for seven years, which, as you may recall, was primarily hosted successfully for years by David Hartman, and who was eventually scripted along with a full co-host, Joan Lunden after she joined the show a few years later.*

As pointed out on the Wiki post, linked above, in 1981, Coleman got together with a "communications entrepreneur" named Frank Batten, and they became the founders of the Weather Channel. Coleman is now no longer affiliated with that organization.

Though at 75, he is semi-retired, John still does the weather for an independent TV station out in San Diego, KUSI-TV. If you would like to view more of John Coleman's clips on global warming, links are posted here on their site.

As he will tell you in the following clip, John's been doing this for 55 years.

John believes that global warming is a scam. Here is his pitch on the topic.

ht to reader, Jake, who kindly sent the link along to me. Thanks Jake!

* Years later, after Hartman retired in 1987, Joan Lunden and Charlie Gibson went to to become the network's top-rated team on the show, overtaking the Today Show for a stint.

2010-01-18T10:15:00.018-05:00

Clunker Central!

01/18/10 -- Unbelievable. From a story today about the United States Senate race in Massachusetts, published across the pond . . . in the Telegraph. (ht, Allahpundit at HotAir, here)

On Republican candidate, Scott Brown campaigning in Boston:

On Friday he did a walk-about in Boston’s Little Italy, a Democrat stronghold. Asked how he felt about possibly winning the seat, he replied to loud cheers: "It’s not the Kennedys’ seat. It’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat."

A number of women had brought along their dogs. Donna, a dentist, had brought her fox terrier Razzie. "I always voted for Kennedy but this guy is refreshing," she said. "Washington has forgotten the middle class and he’s the way we can stop it."

Don't tell me! Did Coakley miss yet another big fat opportunity here?

In addition -- as William Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion notes -- to snatching away chunks of virtually every other imaginable demographic, Scott Brown now walks away with the dog-lovers vote too? No one in Coakley's campaign was smart enough to urge the President to bring along his pooch, Bo? For crying out loud, the dog was a gift from Teddy!

Imagine the possible visuals! Just put a little piece of chicken liver behind ~~Marcia's~~ . . . I mean Martha's ear and the pooch would have gladly, and very personally endorsed her . . . all on his own!

Heck, they could have loaded him up in the back of a pick-up, and she could have driven it across the parking lot, symbolically arriving in an American icon!

Instead, they opted for derision -- from the POTUS himself . . . this:

" . . . Forget the truck. Everybody can buy a truck."

Really? They can? And you mean, as Gateway Pundit has pointed out, like Scott Brown's American-built GM pick-up? The one with 200,000 miles on it from having driven throughout the state campaigning?

So, let's all take a guess at who the real political "clunker" is now! Or, as Dan Riehl has put it, out of gas!

2010-01-06T15:42:00.035-05:00

Past Promises From The Pointer!

UPDATED (3), below: 01/07/10

Naked Emperor News, ht, Brietbart·TV, here.)

UPDATE: And here is the Presidents mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, refusing repeatedly to answer any reporters questions about what happened to the President's repeatedly expressed commitment during the campaign to ensure there would be open C-Span coverage of the development of the healthcare "reforms" as they proceeded through the Congress.

And here is C-Span CEO, Brian Lamb, in an interview expressing the view that C-Span was used as a political football during the campaign. And he further notes that there has only been one hour of the White House part of healthcare coverage by C-Span that has been permitted by the White House, and readily concedes that it was merely for a staged event in the East Room.

Finally, here is Brian Lamb's personally expressed view of why he believes the the process should be televised, and why C-Span made the request to have the remaining healthcare negotiations and debate televised.

Notwithstanding Mr. Lamb's expressed modesty, could it possibly have been put a better way? I can't imagine how!

"The American people pay for all of this that goes on in this town. It's always been my contention, and it's not a sophisticated, intelligent position. It's just a gut reaction -- that if we pay for something, and it's the public's business -- we ought to be able to see how it's done. It's just that simple. Has nothing to do with this particular fight right now."

Yep!

UPDATE 2: 01/07 -- At the Washington Examiner, Byron York posted late yesterday, exposing the Wednesday dissembling by Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs at the daily briefing, during which he made a pathetic attempt to disembroil the White House from the C-Span story.

The reporters questions naturally arose in light of the stories regarding the "secret negotiations" over the healthcare bills, and following the release of the viral video (embedded above) stacking the eight clips of Mr. Obama repeatedly promising back during the campaign to ensure wall-to-wall C-Span coverage of the healthcare debates and negotiations. In his post, York included a transcript from Tuesday's press briefing, featuring a recreant Mr. Gibbs pleading he had not had an opportunity to read Mr. Lamb's letter, and would therefore be unable to fully respond.

Byron then noted that at Wednesday's press confab, when the questions came back about the President's campaign promises about openness and transparency, Gibbs simply balked at giving the reporters any answer at all, and actually referred their fresh questions about the several Obama campaign commitments, back to his Tuesday non-answer!

Here is how Byron York aptly summed it up:

And that was the end of that. If the public wants to know why President Obama didn't keep his pledge to hold televised health-care negotations, they'll have to look for answers elsewhere. The White House isn't talking.

UPDATE 3: 01/08 -- Newt Gingrich agrees with President Obama . . . or at least candidate Obama!

Me too! I think I'll tell him. And so can you. That was easy.

2010-01-05T19:11:00.018-05:00

Pointer in Chief?

January 5 -- Just as he had just finished pointing fingers at the intelligence services for a major "screw up" that he finally recognized could have been disasterous, President Omama, further pointed out that he would not tolerate any finger pointing on the topic!

Huh?

"This was a screw up that could have been disastrous," the president said during a meeting in the White House situation room, according to the White House media office. "We dodged a bullet but just barely. It was averted by brave individuals not because the system worked and that is not acceptable. While there will be a tendency for finger pointing, I will not tolerate it."

Does that count for comments by Administration officials made about critics?

Hmmm . . . maybe that would explain why Vice-President Joe Biden has been keeping his hands in his pockets lately?

White House photo.

2009-12-28T11:32:00.022-05:00

Senator Jaegermeister . . . Why Do You Rise?

UPDATE BELOW: 12/30 -- Statement plus priceless photo link!

Who was the Roman god of wine, inspired madness and drunkenness?

Let's see . . . would it have been Bacchus?

Ahhh, yes . . . I think it was! In Greek mythology, it was the twice-born Dionysus (Dionysos), although, interestingly, the use of the name "Bacchus," for both the votary and god, was actually cited by Greek and Roman sources (fn # 2).

Well, it sure looks to me like somebody from Montana wants to become the Senate replacement for Ted Kennedy, no?

According to Politico, at the link:

An email seeking comment has been sent to Sen. Baucus's office and we will update this post when we hear back.

Will this make the evening news? Not very likely . . . unless Fox News decides to run with it.

p.s. Young ladies are hereby cautioned not to ride in any vehicle where "Mad" Max is behind the wheel . . .

UPDATE: A statement released by the Office of Senator Baucus to Patrick Gavin at Politico, posted in an update here, claims his "passionate defense" was turned into "an unfounded, untrue personal smear internet rumor," i.e., that he was intoxicated while giving the finger-pointing speech memorialized by the video, above.

"When his friend of 30 years Ted Kennedy, with whom he had fought so hard to provide health care to children, was being used as a cheap foil to oppose health care reform, Senator Baucus gave a passionate defense. Unfortunately, those who want to kill any meaningful reform, turned it into an unfounded, untrue personal smear internet rumor. This is beyond the pale and this type of gutter politics has no place in the public sphere. It is this type of slander that makes Montanans, and Americans, disgusted with the politics as usual in Washington. And what is even more sad is that such a personal attack would be given any validity at all, let alone being elevated to the status of 'news'."

Heh. A classic non-denial denial!

And, here's a link to a slightly more close-up photo of Senator Baucus -- not one taken that evening. Heh.

Any questions? (ht: comment by BKeyser on a HotAir thread, here.)

2009-12-16T14:11:00.018-05:00

The Fudge Factor!

In my last post I asked what some others seem also to be asking in various ways . . . "Is Science Itself At Risk?"

People are asking these questions because of the myriad issues that keep arising regarding the work of the progenitors of anthropogenic global warming and climate change.

It seemed to me that the question naturally arises because of what unexplained approximations, private doubts expressed by the scientists themselves, destruction of raw data, data manipulations, employment of "tricks" to "hide the decline," evasions, possible violations of FOI requirements, etc. -- all have been and continue to be exposed, and are all threaded throughout the underbelly of what is being presented in the name of settled science. Thus, so much of what had been recently offered to the world as "science" to be believed, now appears to be riven with quite unsettling and unanswered questions.

And, in addition to all the serious questions many have raised arising out of the revelations of the e-mail and data dump late last month from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK, it now appears there is yet another very serious problem associated with the work compiled over there at the CRU -- unprofessional computer source coding (ht for clip, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, here).

Brace yourself!

It seems that a writer of the source code underscoring their modeling work rather openly and candidly admits that he is somewhat incompetent, and not always up to the task!

On almost a daily basis, new revelations and very troubling information arises regarding global warming science. It does not mean that there is no basis to it. But this is beginning to look like the Leng T'che "slow slicing" -- or, "death by a thousand cuts."

So, many would argue that playing 52 pick-up with the entire world economy might not be such a hot idea, given those unanswered questions. In fact, it might not be such a hot idea, even if the anthropogenic basis of the prognosticators is eventually shown to have merit. That is because, as scientists like Richard S. Lindzen persuasively argue, the scare tactics of claimed climate change are an entirely different story.

He asked in that recent Wall Street Journal piece entitled, "The Climate Science Isn't Settled":

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

You would think this that this "climategate" scandal was becoming a bigger and bigger source of acute embarrassment, especially to those international architects and proponents of massive changes in our world's international economic order, the ones gathered as they all are in Copenhagen, negotiating agreements for underscoring the very energy future of our entire globe, a new and very limiting order attempting to bind developing and developed nations alike.

Now we come to the latest "cut" --- we find out that, on top of all the other issues cited above, that the lofty and grand future economic edifice being negotiated, is firmly rooted, at least in some small part, on the computer modeling work of some self-effacing code writer who readily concedes that, owing to his personal limitations, he has employed a "work-around" or two . . . thereby actually introducing a "fudge factor" right into the scientific mix!

His words!

What the . . . !! Go on. Take a look for yourself. Click on the arrow in the clip below.

2009-12-09T11:04:00.059-05:00

Is Science Itself At Risk?

UPDATE, below: In the embedded Wall Street Journal sponsored "Journal Editorial Report" below, Paul Gigot talks about the overall context of this weeks Copenhagen climate conference, and the various implications thereof, in light of the unfolding scandal at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Arising out of the recent massive release of e-mails, and other evidence, much of the documentation suggested subversion of the peer review process, detailing of deliberate efforts to refuse to comply with FOI requests, recommendations to "lose" data, and even actual data manipulation in the modeling process itself.

Gigot queries the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger, Kimberly Strassel, and Bret Stephens about their takes on meaning of the various aspects of the scandal.

Henninger begins by saying that in light of indications of public opinion shifting to a view that suggests scientists in general are manipulating data, the "rest of science" -- those outside the climate science community -- should speak out publicly and "defend the people who are trying to get more transparency into the [climate science] process."

Strassel makes the singularly important point that, from her perspective, it is not just the exposure of pettiness (as was indeed revealed in the e-mails) or even the implications of politicization therein that matters most. She says that the most disturbing evidence is what strongly suggests actual data manipulation being written right into the code of the computer models themselves. She notes that in conversations with statisticians and others, they "say it is an absolute mess, full of lots of fudges and little sleighs-of-hand, all designed to plump up the case for rising temperatures."

Stephens reiterates that these revelations show what amounts to "sausage factory methods" being used by some of these scientists, picking and choosing some data, while ignoring other data, in order to arrive at conclusions that, after all, attempt to show what are really relatively tiny differences in the temperature record over the decades. In other words, it hasn't taken much in the way of manipulation to create these supposed shifts.

Here is the Wall Street Journal clip:

***********

Andrew Bolt has posted an additional point of interest today, one coming from the "guru" himself, Al Gore, who, when questioned about the impact of the e-mail release, in an interview by John Dickerson posted on Slate, attempted to dismiss the entire controversy by suggesting that it is much ado over nothing but ten year old e-mails!

Really Al?

Here is a link to a searchable version of the entire set of the exposed CRU and East Anglia e-mails. As anyone can see, the considerable number of e-mails range over a more than ten-year period -- 1996 thru 2009 -- with many of the latest and most significant e-mails being a mere one or two months old -- ones from October and November of 2009!

Below is just one recent example, the full exchange of which is laid out here. It is the Phil Jones e-mail response to fellow scientist, Keith Briffa, reacting to a recent re-request for tree ring data supporting a Briffa study. The very specific data request had come from Dr. Don Keiller, who refers to a post of Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit (CA) (new site) in his request.

The blatant recommendation by Phil Jones to stonewall Dr. Keiller, and refuse to appropriately respond to his request is quite manifest:

From: Phil Jones
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: FW: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Date: Wed Oct 28 16:04:00 2009

Keith,

There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.
You and Tim talked about Yamal. Why have the bristlecones come in now.
[1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588#comments
This is what happens - they just keep moving the goalposts.
Maybe get Tim to redo OB2006 without a few more series.
Cheers
Phil

Al Gore simply loses all credibility when making comments like the one he made above -- alleging that the controversy is all just about ten-year old e-mails! The released e-mail record throughout the years is replete with ones as damaging as this less than two month old one written by Phil Jones.

In his piece, Andrew Bolt pointedly noted that Gore falsely claimed three times during the interview that the controversy was only about ten year old e-mails. So, you also really have to wonder what it says about John Dickerson of Slate, who let Gore get away with those complete misrepresentations without calling him on it at any point! Maybe he never read the e-mails either?

***********

In other news, it looks like Laura Nichols, a student reporter for the school newspaper at Penn State University, the Daily Collegian Online, has broken details of the story about how Penn State has indeed also launched an investigation into Michael Mann's role in the explosive "ClimateGate" scandal, ht, Climate Audit, here. The University of East Anglia had previously announced an internal investigation regarding the scandal that has hit its Climate Research Unit (CRU) as a result of the e-mail dump.

**********
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey, at HotAir, posts about the effects that the

"homogenization" process at the NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network had on the temperature readings.

The possible implications are simply stunning, and yet consistent with concerns raised in the e-mails . . . the process literally "falsified climate declines into increases" as Ed noted in his headline. You should read the whole thing.

2009-12-02T06:14:00.021-05:00

West Point Is "The Enemy Camp?"

UPDATE, below: MSNBS political opinionator, Chris Matthews, commenting just after the Obama speech regarding Afghanistan, which the President delivered December 1, 2009, at the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York.

Honestly, is there a bigger fool in public life today than this furrowing-feeler? He calls West Point the "enemy camp!"

This one, of course, was only the latest in that ample tapestry of gaffes that Matthews has woven over the years.

*****************

UPDATE: Apparently Chris Matthews took a lot of heat today for calling the United States Military Academy at West Point the "enemy camp" during his analytical reaction to the Presidents's speech on Afghanistan last night. And he took that he, not just from cadets, or former cadets (which, as you will see, are the only "critics" he acknowledges in the video below) but from a whole raft of Americans, including, you would have to believe, from his bosses at MSNBC.

Certainly, the phones there must have rung off the hook on this one!

So, Chris did an about face and issued the following on-air apology, attempting thereby, as you will hear, to set himself above the strawman politicians who he says would have tried to talk their way around it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Nope. I don't buy it.

I have never believed Chris Matthews was any more than a vile and disingenuous political hack, even back in the days when he first showed up on television and pretended to take a more broadly bipartisan approach to his commentary. To me, he is the most thoroughly dishonest and reprehensible commentator on the air today. And that specifically includes his air-time buddy at MSNBC, Keith Olberman, who at least doesn't try to hide his utter personal contempt for traditional American values, or for that matter, for virtually anything that this country has stood for over the years.

2009-11-30T18:36:00.021-05:00

Climate Change Scandal
The Science and Public Policy Institute

Here is a new website, internet home of the Science and Public Policy Institute, which, as per its statement of purpose, is:

a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry.

The new site is also a good source for both background and breaking information regarding the emerging scandal suggesting global warming and climate change data manipulation at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

The site hosts and experts include, among several other notable experts, President, Robert Ferguson, Chief Science advisor, Willie Soon PhD, and Chief Policy Advisor, Lord Monckton of the UK.

Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brechley, and Prof. Fred Singer, were among a number of distinguished individuals who were personally named and attacked in a series of e-mail exchanges and other data, including e-mails dating from back in early March of 1996, and running up through November 12, 2009, all of which were contained in the recent dump on the internet of exposed communications e-mails to and from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Monckton and Singer have now both formally requested that consideration be given by the UK Information Commissioner to criminal charges being filed against various individuals within that small cabal of scientists at the CRU, and others involved in possible violations of Britain's Freedom Of Information Laws. The UK Information Commissioner has enforcement jurisdiction over their FOI laws.

In an interview with James Corbett of Corbett Report.com, Lord Monckton discusses that request, as well as his views regarding the impact of the exposure of the data and e-mails from the CRU at East Anglia, here:

Meanwhile, a real bombshell article authored by Jonathan Leake, and just published in the (London) Sunday "TimesOnLine," entitled "Climate change data dumped," has proved to be the latest damning information released regarding the goings on within the CRU, especially since it came right on the heels of Robert Mendick’s story — "Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row" — that appeared the night before in the Telegraph, saying that climate scientists at East Anglia University would be fully complying with FOI requests that had been pressed by many over a period of years.

According to the lead of the Times story:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

And yet from that Telegraph article:

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

A human interest element in the Telegraph story highlighted the experience of one man, an English mechanical engineer named David Holland, who, claiming 40 years of experience, had apparently filed a few FOI requests regarding the climate change data over time. Holland apparently also discovered his name and requests mentioned in an unflattering context among those recently "released" internal e-mails of the CRU.

What clearly seemed like an odd juxtaposition of those two nearly simultaneous stories, of course, was that they created a sort of contradictory scenario with respect to the credibility of the CRU, almost as if to say, "Okay. We agree to release all the data . . . And, by the way, there isn’t any!"

2009-11-18T14:42:00.037-05:00

Barack Obama's Teachable Moment
First, both sentence and verdict -- then the show trial!

11/18/2009 -- On NRO Andrew McCarthy notes the utterly amateurish comments of President Barack Obama during a Q&A with press journalists, while traveling in China. The statements seemed all the more surprising given the fact that the President was once a Professor of Constitutional Law, and would presumably be fully aware of the implications of such comments.

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention. I'm sure it wasn't — he's trying to contain the political damage caused by his decision — but that won't matter. He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool. Nice work.

Yet, Attorney General Eric Holder has now amplified the controversy by flatly stating that the failure to secure a conviction is simply not an option.

Andrew McCarthy illustrates well the unnecessary risks to the judicial system itself, and even to future defendants, arising out of the decision to try these war criminals in civilian court trials in New York City. Other critics coming from a defense perspective, such as Shannon Love, have raised alarms regarding the potential negative consequences on a judicial system that was never designed to deal with such problems.

Speaking of such risks, one wonders from where exactly will the court seek this ostensibly neutral jury pool, in and around New York City?

Practical Problems - Jury Pool:
I can immediately think of four major practical problems related to the potential jury pool that could easily come to plague prosecutors, and will, by the very nature of things, mock any notion of "fairness" in a jury trial process, which four items are listed below:

1) Given the nature and depth of Islamo-facist enmity toward all Western institutions, including all faiths other than their own, toward all our democratic institutions, including our judicial system, and finally toward most Americans; and given their willingness to act on that hatred -- who in their right mind would willingly consent to serve on such a jury?

2) Given the nature and depth of the infection of American society and it's institutions with a level of "political correctness," one which has demonstrably caused, as also pointedly noted by Andy McCarthy on NRO, occasional and unacceptable levels of denial of the obvious -- most recently manifested among the ranks of our first line of defense in the military at Fort Hood -- what assurance do we have that holding this unnecessary show trial will not trigger an Islamist terrorist reaction, one perhaps launched in some other venue, that will be tragic and unnecessarily result in death and destruction?

We know, for example, that the thorough and able prosecution of the plotters in the first WTC bombing by the team of prosecutors which Mr. McCarthy led, did not stop al-Qaeda from designing and carrying out a far more deadly attack. Who is to this day willing to say confidently that that first trial was not a significant or even a major contributing factor motivating the latter terrorists?

The trials arising out of those first attacks were certainly were not a deterrent!

3) How will the court find a jury of their "peers" other than by, for example, packing that pool with self-professed Muslims? Or, will they proceed by identifying an agglomeration of half-wits; people who have either never heard of these war criminals, or who have somehow never formed an opinion of them that would prejudice their ability to fairly judge the evidence adduced at trial? And, as a corollary, how do they keep out a flier -- some nutcase seeking historical infamy, who decides to "hang" the jury?

4) Given the huge historical stakes involved, including the heavy prior involvement of the Attorney General and other now-top officials in the Obama Justice Department in laying much of the defense groundwork pre-2008, and since the election in designing "the protocols" through which Mr. Holder claims this hitherto unprecedented decision was made -- to proceed with civilian trials in New York of these war criminals -- what basis do we have for believing that adequate consideration was given to ensure the safety and security of potential jurors, or others, both now (through the trial), and into the future?

Civil "Show" Trials As An Unnecessary Risk:
The singular factor underscoring all of the above, is that these trials are unnecessary from a constitutional perspective, and a calculated risk. And has been pointed out by, among others, Andy McCarthy, and James Joyner, there is little or justification for them, other than as "show trials."

Even Obama himself was at one point looking favorably on the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by military commission. Gee, what happened?

And the Defendant himself was willing to plead guilty to a military commission!

That fact came up as a point of contention when Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) confronted Attorney General Holder over it at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic of the civilian trials.

Tempers flared when Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., challenged Holder to say how a civilian trial could be better, since Mohammed has sought to plead guilty to a military commission.

"How could he be more likely to get a conviction than that?" pressed Kyl, to applause from some in the hearing room.

The point is that all of these were acts were acts of war, and that military commissions are a thoroughly constitutional process, one backed by historical precedent, as the President himself emphatically stated in a speech back in May.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.

It is also a process by which we could have avoided the obvious, unnecessary and unacceptable risks that Barack Obama seems insistent on visiting on the American people with regard to several terrorists whose acts unquestionably constituted acts of war.

But apparently for Barack Obama and Eric Holder, the show must go on!

2009-11-11T23:11:00.005-05:00

Please Support the 11/11 Program For Veterans

The goal of this worthy program is very simple . . . it is to encourage 11 million Americans to pledge $11.00 apiece for support programs for veterans.

Americans can simply text the word "VETS" to 85944 to automatically donate $10 to America’s veterans – and, your $10 donation will be matched with $1 from Beyond Tribute.

Or, you can simply click and go here to make your simple pledge.

Your contribution will be distributed directly to Beyond Tribute’s coalition partners. They, in turn, will provide direct services and advocacy for our country's veterans.

It is that simple. And veterans everywhere will appreciate your generosity.

Thank you!

2009-11-11T15:21:00.016-05:00

A Veteran's Tale

11/11/09 -- Today is Veteran's Day. There is one story I always think of on this day. Not to be misunderstood, I think of other stories as well. But this one . . . always.

It is a story about a veteran who I knew many, many years ago, by the name of Dennis Johnson, a medic who hailed from, as he liked to put it, "Ala-by God-bama." And then he's smile.

Without a doubt, Dennis was the bravest person I ever met.

"D" or "Doc," as he was sometimes called -- a lot of medics get that nickname -- served in Viet Nam with the 62d Engineer Battalion, Land Clearing (LC) during much of 1970, and into '71. The 62d had three companies that utilized mostly D-7 bulldozers, with large "stinger" Rome Plow blades, and with semi-protective cages. They were used to clear back growth from the roadsides in order to reduce ambushes, and to cut swaths in the jungle to break up the V.C. or N.V.A supply routes.

Dennis Johnson was a fun loving guy, probably 19 or maybe 20 years old, always with that quick smile and a deep drawl. But when things got hot, Dennis was the guy you wanted nearby, along with his (medical) aide bag.

In mid-June of 1970, Dennis was one of three medics attached to the 984th Company, (LC), which was at the time camped out in a night defensive position (NDP) deep in the Fish Hook region of Cambodia, north of Thien Ngon, all part of the overall attempt to locate and rout COSVN HQ. The Company had located on a slight hill, in the midst of what had obviously been an N.V.A. encampment, as it was laced throughout with an underground tunnel system.

On the evening of the 19th, a Friday, the 984th was attacked with ash can rounds (modified 107 mm mortars), 82 mm mortars, and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) fire. The day before the 984th had dug up a whole bunker complex while out in the cut, exposing and capturing a whole raft of supplies, including medical supplies, N.V.A. supplies, including obviously officer-related materials (NVA flags, pictures of Ho Chi Minh), that indicated our troops were perhaps close to the sought-after COSVN Headquarters complex. Both the 984th and the security element had been sporadically attacked out in the cut during the day. The N.V.A. were obviously not happy at all with our troops' presence.

When they attacked the 984th on the evening of the 19th, Dennis Johnson did what he always did. He'd immediately grab his aide bag, and head right in the direction of the attack, looking for wounded troops. He acted so quickly that night that it may have saved his own life. I was later told that within seconds, a second mortar landed right next to the tent he had been in, injuring both of the other medics who were located in that tent. So Dennis had to patch up and participate in the dust off those two, along with about twenty other injured troops, during the ensuing attack. Three of the 984th Engineer Plow Operators were killed in that intense attack.

For his actions that night, Dennis was awarded a Bronze Star. But everyone I ever talked to about it, including several men who were right there that evening, felt that Dennis had fully earned a Silver Star for his singular gallantry and intrepidity under such intense hostile fire. Acting virtually alone on the ground, Dennis saved the lives of many, many men that night. The story that circulated thereafter -- of why he was only put in for a Bronze Star -- was that the officer who made the recommendation simply refused to put "D" in for an award higher than he himself was being put in to receive. I hate to say it, but having known that officer, I tended to believe it. The officer was later relieved of command over the 984th.

I don't know where Dennis Johnson is today. I wish I did. A few veteran friends and I have tried a few times to reach him, once back in the late 1980s when a few of us gathered in Washington to visit the Wall. But, I have kept in touch with one of the other two medics who Dennis patched up that night, a young kid from San Francisco, who at the time was about 18 and had dropped out of high school before being "persuaded" to go in the service. But by the time Mike eventually returned to the United States, he had earned a G.E.D., and then secured himself a college degree. Mike then went on to medical school, and has spent the past thirty some years as a medical doctor, and raising a wonderful family.

Imagine tracking back now, not just to Mike, but to all those whose lives were, and to this day are by extension being touched for the better because "D" Johnson stopped the bleeding, or started an IV, or secured or stabilized a broken limb . . . and not just that night, but the many times, and with uncommon courage, he stepped up and did his job under enemy fire.

Imagine. His story is truly one of the reasons we so honor our veterans.

2009-11-10T13:37:00.005-05:00

State Department Reacts To Attack On Yoani Sánchez
Still No Word From NJ Senator Menendez

The United States State Department has now officially reacted to, and condemned the detention and physical attack on the Cuban "Generation Y" blogger, Yoani Sánchez, and a few of her friends, including Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo.

Below is the press statement of condemnation, found on the Department's website (ht, MEDIAite, here.)

A chronological listing of all State Department Press statements can be found here:

Assault on Cuban Bloggers

Ian Kelly
Department Spokesman
Washington, DC

November 9, 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. government strongly deplores the assault on bloggers Yoani Sanchez, Orlando Luis Pardo, and Claudia Cadelo. On November 6, these three activists were forcibly detained by plain clothes security personnel and beaten while en route to a peaceful demonstration in Havana.

The President has proclaimed November 9 World Freedom Day. It is precisely this sort of repression and violence against the voices of freedom and reconciliation that World Freedom Day is meant to expose. We call on the Government of Cuba to ensure the full respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens.

We have expressed to the Cuban government our deep concern with the assaults, and we are following up with inquiries to Yoani Sanchez, Orlando Luis Pardo, and Claudia Cadelo regarding their personal well-being and access to medical care.

PRN: 2009/1120

As also reported at MEDIAite, there were no reports of the attack anywhere in the Cuban official press.

According to her specific account of the detention and beating, there were actually four people in her group when they were first detained: Yoani, Claudia Cadelo, Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo, and an unnamed friend, who were all on their way to the march against violence. Yoani and Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo were put in one car together, where they were both severely beaten. The other two were taken away in a patrol car before she and Orlando were forced into the other car.

At the end of the graphic post she described her feelings, and those of Orlando upon being dumped back onto the street some time later.

. . . We were left aching, lying in a street in Timba, a woman approached, "What has happened?"… "A kidnapping," I managed to say. We cried in each others arms in the middle of the sidewalk, thinking about Teo, for God’s sake how am I going to explain all these bruises. How am I going to tell him that we live in a country where this can happen, how will I look at him and tell him that his mother, for writing a blog and putting her opinions in kilobytes, has been beaten up on a public street. How to describe the despotic faces of those who forced us into that car, their enjoyment that I could see as they beat us, their lifting my skirt as they dragged me half naked to the car.

I managed to see, however, the degree of fright of our assailants, the fear of the new, of what they cannot destroy because they don’t understand, the blustering terror of he who knows that his days are numbered.

Still no press word as of this writing (2:59 pm 11/10/09) from New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, however.

Here's a thought . . . how about just a "tweet," Senator?

2009-11-09T15:24:00.004-05:00

"A Word Fitly Spoken . . ."

11-09-09 -- Scott Johnson at Powerline has a great post today -- "Tear Down This Wall" -- giving readers a summary version of the actual back story on how President Ronald Reagan came to include that central line in his famous speech, the one made in view of the Berlin Wall, by the Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 1987.

It was a stunning speech, one that foreshadowed the actual tearing down of the Berlin Wall by the German residents themselves in November of 1989, just 20 years ago today.

The fascinating post extensively quoted Peter Robinson, author of the memoir, "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life." Peter was a speechwriter for the former President, and penned the draft of the speech. He relates how he came to include that line, after attending a dinner party in Berlin.

Peter also relates how later, during an official meeting to discuss what Reagan wanted to say to the people throughout Germany, where the speech was to be broadcast, Reagan specificallysingled out that one line in Peter's draft for definite inclusion in the speech.

Peter asked him:

"Mr. President," I said, "I learned on the advance trip that this speech will be heard not only in West Berlin but throughout East Germany. Is there anything you'd like to say to people on the other side of the Berlin Wall?"

The President cocked his head and thought. "Well," he replied, "there's that passage about tearing down the wall. That wall has to come down. That's what I'd like to say to them."

Finally, Peter's story also relates the strong institutional opposition to the draft of the speech, coming from both the State Department and the National Security Agency.

Scott then sums up Peter's tale of the President's resolve in retaining that now famous line, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

He does so through a Biblical quotation taken from Proverbs 25:11 . . . "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver."

Nice touch. In the case of the speech, words that urged a mountain to move . . . and, it did.

Just twenty years ago today. Here is that portion of the speech:

2009-11-09T10:43:00.023-05:00

Voices of Freedom Attacked
Yoani Sánchez & Orlando Luis Pardo Beaten in Cuba

UPDATES, 3:00 pm, 342 pm, 11/09/09, below:
NBC News is reporting that last Friday, Yoani Sánchez, the Cuban "Generation Y" blogger and a few of her friends, including Orlando Luis Pardo, were physically detained last Friday by the Cuban state security officials, and she and Pardo were then beaten. More from the Miami Herald, here.

Sánchez and Pardo were singled out from their small group, shoved in a car, and were physically beaten by the officials -- which she later described as the employment of "professional violence." The two of them were then reportedly driven around for about 20 minutes, and only then released.

At the time they were first accosted and detained, the state security thugs warned a few concerned onlookers off, claiming that Sánchez and Pardo were "counter-revolutionaries." They and a few other friends were being physically prevented at the time from attending what was to be a mild anti-violence demonstration. It is a familiar tactic of totalitarian communist regimes. All too familiar for those who remember the Cold War.

Obviously, the Cuban regime did not want the powerful messenger that Yoani Sánchez has become, delivering a description of events at the demonstration. When Sánchez and Pardo challenged the authority of the "officials" who had detained them, demanding identification and warrants, the officials called in for orders. Apparently having received the go-ahead, the "officials" then proceeded to physically attack and beat the two of them in the back of a vehicle.

Sánchez later described the incident here on her blog, which she entitled "A gangland style kidnapping." Prepare to be outraged as you read it.

A few months ago, we included a link here to her translated site on our blog roll, as have many American bloggers. And inspired by her courage and her skill as a writer, we also posted a quotation from her website on our site.

"After speaking your mind, you can't one fine day return to silence."

-- Yoani Sánchez, Cuban blogger quoted here.

Where, one wonders, is the public voice of outrage from our State Department, whose motto is Diplomacy in Action? After all, has the Secretary of State not been attending the celebration ceremonies marking 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall?

No, we're not her heavy involvement in talking with this Sanchez . . .

At this past Friday's State Department press briefing, there was no mention of the incident regarding Yoani Sánchez, as it was apparently too soon. But as of this writing, nothing has yet been posted on the website of the Department of State about the matter.

How about "just a "tweet" from the Secretary of State of the United States?

The topic index at the official website of the Secretary of State (located at the top) has no entree for "freedom of speech" -- none. And if you look under the broader topic of "civil rights" all recent posts there are about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender pride month issues.

Nothing about free speech. Too old-fashioned?

Then, if you look under country-by-country postings, the latest posting indexed for some mention of "Cuba" was for the daily briefing on October 26th, but it only mentioned Guantanamo Bay.

As for recent official State Department press releases on Cuba, as of this writing, there are none since September.

Finally, one wonders, where is the voice of the President of the United States, if his Secretary of State insists on remaining silent?

Will he speak up for freedom of speech?

Will he condemn the official violence in Cuba against a few lonely and courageous voices, including a brave young woman who has now been administered an official beating by the thugs the President says he is trying to engage?

UPDATE, 3:00 pm, 11/09/09: And speaking of voices that should be speaking out, where is the voice of United States Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who was born in New York, a child of Cuban immigrants? At least as of this writing, even he has remained silent.

UPDATE II: 3:42 pm, 11/09/09: Now there is a brand new interview with Yoani Sánchez, by Jose Simian found here at MEDIAite . . . where she describes in additional detail exactly what happened last Friday (ht, Big Government found here).

During the interview, Yoani also addresses what she sees as the fears of the repressive Cuban regime in attempting to deal with the internet phenomenon.

Please read the whole thing, but here is just an example of her thought:

"I don't think they are afraid of me, because I'm just a little person that they can easily eliminate. What they are afraid of is the phenomenon of the alternative blogosphere, the phenomenon that more and more young people are projecting their voices: that is tremendously contagious. This is why they may be attempting to make a sort of 'prevention,' applying some sort of vaccine, so the blogger virus, the virus of opinions, does not spread. I don't think their attack is against the person of Yoani Sánchez, but rather against the blogger phenomenon, a phenomenon of different opinions that is taking place in Cuba. They want to paralyze as many people as possible with a preventive strike."

2009-10-20T22:27:00.011-04:00

ABCs Jake Tapper Does His Job
Kudos Galore Pour In

Today, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, challenged Obama Press flak Robert Gibbs in the White House press room, on why the Obama White House felt entitled to claim, as they have over the past several days, that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization, and why other news organizations should thereby shun them.

The exchange was posted here on Jake's blog, Political Punch.

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations "not a news organization" and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that's a pretty sweeping declaration that they are "not a news organization." How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight. Or 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a "news organization" -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That's our opinion.

In reading through many of the hundreds of comments in the thread following Jake's post, I was struck by the very large number of people who simply posted comments there thanking Jake Tapper for doing his job! I'd never read anything like it.

An instant outpouring of affection for a reporter? Think about it!

So, I decided to leave a comment.

Here it is:

Somehow, it all just seems so out of sync to read so many comments from people who are actually thanking Jake Tapper for doing his job! A reporter! People hate reporters, don't they? I cannot recall another time when I saw or read anything quite like it. Of course, the internet age differs from the past, but still!

He really does not expect to be thanked, you know. Matter of fact, I'll even bet the kudos are a little bit embarrassing to him. I also suspect he would say that he simply knows no other way, that he is just doing his job.

Well . . . that's true.

Now, this is not the first time Jake Tapper has asked tough questions of the current occupant(s) of the White House. And there aren't a lot of reporters that do that these days.

There are very few.

Jake Tapper is historically one of a long line of journalists who have played an enormously important role in our republic, because what the good reporters and journalists do, is watch how people in charge handle their power. And they ask them questions, sometimes in a seemingly impertinent manner, about what they are doing and why. They challenge them, ask for documents as proof, and often come at them from several different angles. And they expose the screw ups.

Yet, it suddenly and almost instantaneously became a lost art with so many of the star-struck press minions, with the election of Barack Obama less than one year ago, like they chugged down some happy potion. Quite a few of them had consciously or subconsciously played an important role in actually promoting his candidacy. More than a few of them openly worshiped him. All many of them did was write breathless pap.

Remember back in June of this year, when the President of Newsweek actually said that Barack Obama was above America, even above the world -- he declared Obama was "sort of God?"

What the ?#$>$C. . . He should have been laughed out of town . . . or issued a bib, and sent off to the home!

I just hope there are a few reporters reading this thread -- the ones that still read, that is. And I hope they take something away from the fact that Jake Tapper has been thanked here repeatedly for doing his job. Maybe it will awaken something in them, some spark, some faint recollection of what their job is, and what this country is all about.

So what the heck, here goes -- not for nothing!

Hey Jake. Thanks man. There's nothing quite like watching a real pro at work. Good job!

Posted by: Trochilus October 20, 2009 at 10:21 PM

2009-10-10T07:57:00.034-04:00

First the Prize! Then the Performance!

Brent Bozell's Media Research Center has captured (embedded below) what can only be termed a funny and revealing moment in mainstream media pomposity (ht, Rick Noyes NewsBusters, here.

After having intensely covered the President's first reaction to the then-breaking story of the surprise announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize award to Barack Obama -- who was in office all of 11 days when the nominations were closed -- Brian Williams preemptively and dismissively carps in anticipation at the blogosphere and the pundits, broadly tagging them as the comic elements of our civilization!

White House reporter Chuck Todd quickly concurs, of course, and takes one last stab at reiterating an Obama political point -- emphasizing the reality of the President's job.

Here's a transcript:

WILLIAMS: "Chuck Todd remains at the White House. Chuck, the way our society and civilization is set up now, um, it's almost as if we ... we're heading into a weekend now. The comic element of our society the blogosphere, pundits, the opinion-based economy in the United States will now just get a free shot and have at it for the next three days at least."

TODD: "They will. But you know, one other point the President himself touched on that we ought to, uh, we ought to point out is the fact that the reality of his job really sets in when he has another meeting of his war council to talk about Afghanistan."

Take a look:

Hey . . . remember all those times when folks like Brian Williams and Chuck Todd in the mainstream media stepped in to remind viewers of the reality of President Bush's job?

Yeah. Me neither. But then, the Nobel Peace Prize was not given to President Obama for actually doing anything. It was given to him by his cheerleaders on the Peace Prize Committee for what they hope he will do.

As reported in the Times (of London), the Norwegian Committee Chairman (the Peace Prize is entirely separate from the various Swedish Committee awards for substantive accomplishment in a variety of fields) made it clear that the award was not being given to Obama for anything he has done. Instead, it was given to politically underscore what they eagerly anticipate.

The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for.

Thorbjørn Jagland, the committee chairman, made clear that this year’s prize fell in that category. "If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do," he said. "It could be too late to respond three years from now."

In other words, they are merely shilling for Barack Obama's political agenda. In a way it is a twisted version of Lewis Carroll's delightful twisted royal logic from Alice In Wonderland. Said the King:

"First the sentence, then the verdict!"

And, in this instance, to paraphrase Carroll, Thorbjørn Jagland has essentially said, "First the prize, then the performance!"

But, as Brent Baker at Media Research Center points out, that didn't stop the other mainstream media clucks from breathlessly climbing all over one another last evening to emphasize the wonderfulness of the award to The One.

During the Friday evening, Brian Williams at NBC took one last stab at the critics, and called the prize,

"one of the last remaining towering honors on Earth."

No, he did not say tiring. He said towering.

Like the "towering honor" that Yasser Arafat somehow garnered?

Just read the official biography that the Nobel Committee itself has posted on their website, memorializing to some extent Arafat's life of terrorism, and including a quick subsequent summary description of his governing style, after having been elected the President of the Palestinian Authority in 1996, following the Oslo Accords of 1993! Their final paragraph in the bio, the man to whom they had awarded the Prize, included this understated but telling acknowledgement:

"Like other Arab regimes in the area, however, Arafat's governing style tended to be more dictatorial than democratic."

Never once did that man seriously try to break from a cycle of terror and murder, nor from the exploitation and sacrifice of, and not for, his people. That lasted a lifetime - except of course, once very briefly back in 1994 -- to go and receive the Nobel Peace Prize!

How "towering" of him . . . and tiring of them!

2009-09-27T12:35:00.066-04:00

A New Conspiracy Of Dunces?
Bill Clinton & the Big Plot Against Democrats!

Updated: 09/29 -- Back in the pre-Lewinsky, though post "halcyon" days, of the Clinton Administration, Time Magazine published a commentary by Bruce Handy ridiculing conspiracy theorists in general, and pointedly snickering at those who were advancing governmental theories about Bill Clinton in particular.

The title, from which this piece is derived, was a play on a similar title taken from the one-hit-wonder novel by John Kennedy Toole. Yet, a bare few years later, when stories about Clinton and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky surfaced on the news aggregator, Drudge Report, it was Hillary Clinton leading the charge, in accusing conservatives and Republicans of being involved in a "vast right-wing conspiracy." By then, Bruce Handy didn't seem to recall his prior formulation. He was a bit too busy excusing the "putatively noble" President for having been a bit of a "tomcat."

For many, many years now, new media critics of what has fashionably come to be known as the "mainstream media," have prodded news outlets on the subject of bias, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt, arguing that there is now and has been a decidedly left-leaning cant to the news coverage in that amorphous place we call the media marketplace of ideas, particularly with regard to political reporting. And over the years polls have repeatedly supported the sense that there is a liberal bias in the mainstream media, though liberals are increasingly likely to identify what they see as media bias as well.

If political news reporting is about anything in a representative democracy, it should be at least focused on ideas. We frequently lose sight, in the thick and intrusive fog of celebrity and personality, that what we are observing is little more than an entertaining focal plane from which politicians and newsmakers spew those ideas in order to fuel public debate, and from which the rest of us view and evaluate them.

But Bill Clinton has now jumped back into the current murky waters of conspiratorial accusations with a novel comment made today on NBC's Meet the Press with David Gregory, alleging, as the AP has quickly reported it, that the

"vast, right-wing conspiracy that once targeted him, is now focusing on President Barack Obama."

Whoever framed the question for Meet the Press host, David Gregory, either had a sense of humor, and set the boy up, or had no sense whatsoever about the irony of the question being framed in that manner.

Here is exactly what Gregory asked:

"Your wife famously talked about the vast right wing conspiracy targeting you. As you look at this opposition on the right to President Obama, is it still there?"

The question, of course, presumes that there was such a "conspiracy." Now anyone with any memory at all will recall that Hillary Clinton made that absurd comment on NBC's Today Show in the precise context of whether her husband had committed adultery. And as we all now know, he had. And, we all know that he openly lied to the American public about it. Hillary's comment then was appropriately tagged at the time as paranoid, and once the truth came out, her comment began being openly ridiculed, just as Bill's answer to David Gregory's query today ought to be.

But that is not the way the question and Clinton's comment are being reported, not just by AP, but also by CNN, here.

They are being reported as if each -- her original accusation, and his rant today -- are both somehow legitimate characterizations of political opposition to the policies of the current President.

Here is the clip of Gregory's question and the key portion of Clinton's answer. If you wish to, you can watch the entire Clinton response to Gregory's question here.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The original Hillary Clinton comment, as you may recall, was made in the context of the breaking story in January of 1998 that then-President Clinton had had a sexual affair with young Monica Lewinsky, which affair was alleged to have taken place in the Oval Office within the White House. Hillary Clinton went on the attack, alleging that it was all false, and that there was instead, a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was fueling this and all false stories about her husband.

As the Washington Post reported at the time regarding her appearance on NBC's Today Show:

"First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday launched a vigorous counterattack on behalf of her husband's beleaguered presidency, declaring that the president is the victim of a "politically motivated" prosecutor allied with a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Using a nationally televised interview as her forum, she assumed a familiar and crucial role as Bill Clinton's first defender. She said she knew him better than anyone in the world, still loved him, and fully believed his denial of allegations that he had entered into a sexual relationship with a White House intern and had urged the young woman to lie about it."

Ooops! You might have thought that David Gregory and the Meet the Press staff would have access to those old Today Show clips, and that they would have eschewed the use of the much-maligned phrase!

Over time, the most potent evidence of left-leaning media bias has come from several instances of outright objective dishonesty, rather than the obvious contextual absurdity of Clinton's comment today.

In the former category, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes come to mind.* Or, Scott Beauchamp.**

Much more recently, however, we have witnessed blatant bias involving three "top" tier news gathering organizations, each climbing all over one another in an attempt at a take-down on the two young "conservative journalists" who have exposed ACORN. As documented by Joel Mobray at Big Government, three the mainstream media, including New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press were not only late to the story -- they have now all had to issue corrections for false quotations or statements they made about James O'Keefe. Scott at Powerline has more detail about the Times and WaPo treatment of the duo. Update: Scott at Powerline has drawn a bead on the pernicious offense of the Washington Post in falsely attributing a racially-charged quote to O'Keefe. Scott links to a concise explication of the handling of the false quote by the newspaper in a piece posted by Gary Larson at Human Events.

Perhaps this latest Clinton foray is an attempt to tack back a bit from an earlier Democrat-based formulation, one advanced by another former Democrat President, Jimmy Carter -- that the "overwhelming portion" of the intense opposition to President Obama's policies is based on racism -- the fact that Barack Obama is "black."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Washington Post story by Garance Franke-Ruta summed it up this way:

In remarks decried by Republicans, former president Jimmy Carter told NBC's Brian Williams in an interview Tuesday that he believes race is at the core of much of the opposition to President Obama.

Carter's ugly and divisive characterization has since been thoroughly rejected by the American public, with a Rasmussen poll concluding that only 12% of Americans agree with him. And, though there are many (21%) who are uncertain if race is a source of the opposition, fully two-thirds (67%) of Americans outright reject that notion. Even the President himself shrewdly has put distance from that formulaic paranoia, noting on a guest appearance on Letterman that,

"First of all, I think it's important to realize that I was actually black before the election."

So, is this new Bill Clinton formulation just the latest Democrat effort to somehow convince the public that opposition to the President's policies is really based on a political conspiracy -- just not an overtly racist one, as Carter had claimed?

David Gregory comes across as the classic "useful idiot" for having either formulated or at least asked the question in a manner that would remind people of that old Hillary paranoia.

But you really have to wonder -- why do the "professionals" at top media outlets keep getting caught at it?

Is it genuine stupidity? Group think?

Or, is it an irreconcilable sense that it just plain doesn't matter what the public thinks? One thing is for certain -- professionalism it is not!

# # # # #

* Rather, the top newsman of his day and his producer, fashioned and aired an utterly dishonest report, based on what they knew or should have known were forged documents, ones that were given to them by an utterly disreputable source, and which had been hashed over and rejected repeatedly by other news outlets. But after working and reworking the story with an obsessive zeal, Rather and Mapes aired it on CBS with the obvious intention of politically "mortally" wounding a sitting President in the crucial run-up to the 2004 election. Update: AP reports that an appeals court in New York has dismissed Rather's suit against CBS on all grounds.

As we all know, the new media -- internet blogs and aggregators, initially a web contributor with the screen name "Buckhead" -- took the CBS report apart with a blizzard of evidence, the best of which convincingly proved that the documents on which the entire report was founded, were blatant forgeries -- proof based on close technological analysis of typeface fonts in the ostensible written correspondence, ones that simply did not exist at the time recorded on the "damning" documents.

And Rather's nearly immediate defense constituted what had to have been the most risible formulation in the history of journalism -- that the documents may have been questionable, but the underlying story was true. He might as well have said the story was false but it was true. We all had a good laugh, and Dan Rather left, only to become a pathetic, comic figure desperately trying to this day to salvage his reputation.

CBS conducted their own internal investigation, the key conclusion of which was nearly as comical as Rather's "it's false but it's true" formulation. Though the expert they hired to determine if the documents were forgeries, concluded what others in cyberspace had already done -- that no such typewriter typeface existed at the time the documents were supposedly written – the report concluded that they would leave the issue open, on the outside chance that someone at some time in the future might discover a typewriter with such a typeface. Again, we all had a good laugh.

** There was so much written about the fabulist Iraq soldier, Scott Beauchamp, who published his expose "story" in the New Republic, that it is hard to know where to begin with the exposure of his pattern of lies. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit posted a pretty concise summary of them here.

2009-09-21T21:00:00.010-04:00

Jon Corzine: "Its My Way, or the . . . Expressway?"

The Christie for Governor campaign's latest ad pokes fun at Jon Corzine's slip-up, trying to remember the name of the Garden State Parkway. The New Jersey Governor demonstrates a "way with the words" as he walks around down at the shore, wearing a suit and carrying an umbrella.

What the . . . ? Does this guy even like it here in New Jersey?

Gee, I'm surprised he didn't call it the Speedway!

That at least would have made some sense, given the incident two years back on April 12, 2007 when the Governor irresponsibly refused to buckle up for a high-speed frolic back to Drumthwacket, while driving north, near the southern end of the Garden State Parkway.*

At the time, Administration figures initially insisted that speed was not a factor, and they even tried to scapegoat a "mystery" driver of a red pick-up truck that was entering the Parkway on an entrance ramp, claiming he had been "driving erratically" just prior to the crash. They even issued an all-points bulletin looking for the guy.

But that story quickly began to unravel, and it turned out that a week later the "Administration finally had to own up to the fact that the Governor’s vehicle was barreling along at 91 mph, 26 mph OVER the speed limit" at the time of the crash -- as determined by a "black-box" in the vehicle -- when they were running late and trying to make a scheduled meeting on time with Don Imus and the Rutgers Womens' Basketball Team back in Princeton.

Though he was identified, no charges were ever filed against the driver of the red pick-up. He did nothing wrong. The ensuing crash in his trooper-driven SUV Suburban nearly cost Corzine his life, as he was hurled around within the cab of the vehicle when it ran off the roadway. Because he was not buckled up, the Governor suffered numerous fractures, including "11 ribs, a fractured sternum, a fractured collar bone, a fracture to one vertebra, and a compound fracture of his left femur."

* Numerous sources for our original stories were linked at the original posts, here and here.

2009-08-31T09:48:00.043-04:00

We'll Meet Again . . . Again!

UPDATE: AND AGAIN! 09/13 -- Sweet! The Telegraph reports that Dame Vera Lynn, the Forces' Sweetheart, has now hit Number One on the Album charts in Great Britain -- at 92, she is obviously the oldest person to have ever achieved such an honor, for her recent CD release, We'll Meet Again - The Very Best of Vera Lynn.

From the story by Ben Leach:

The 92-year-old has now usurped Bob Dylan as the oldest artist to grace the number one position after her album We'll Meet Again - The Very Best of Vera Lynn went straight to the top of the charts.

Her album outsold artists including the Arctic Monkeys, Jamie T and the Kings of Leon, and beat The Beatles' much-hyped remastered editions.

Update: 09/14 -- Mark Steyn weighs in on this remarkable story of a lady whose song became an upbeat war anthem for the British. Written in 1939 by Hughie Charles and Ross Parker. He describes how it came to be recorded by young Vera Lynn.

Its slightly stodgy optimism is quintessentially British. In that summer of '39, they passed it to the bandleader Ambrose, who'd taken on a young singer called Vera Lynn. She'd sung with the Charlie Kunz orchestra and had made a solo record of a leaden novelty called "Up The Wooden Hill To Bedfordshire". But Hughie Charles considered Vera "a very nice kid" and thought "We'll Meet Again" would be right for her. So Ambrose worked up an arrangement and, as Dame Vera told me a few years back, audiences responded to it immediately, and it quickly became her sign-off song - especially when she landed her own BBC radio show a few months into the war. "We'll Meet Again" made Vera Lynn a star.

The irony was, as you'll learn from the recent BBC interview below, Vera Lynn thought sure the outbreak of war, 70 years ago this month, would spell the immediate end of her brief 15 year career. (That's right -- she had begun singing in clubs at age 7!) So with that brief taste of Mark's new post, here's hoping you'll read the entire thing. That was just a teaser. Mark's post is simply indispensible for a full understanding of the musical history setting.

(Our original post from August 31st) -- The Daily Mail reports that the World War II "Forces' Sweetheart," Vera Lynn is back on the British music charts with a "best of" CD, at the tender age of 92, and breaking her way into the Top 20! Likewise, it is reported by the Times OnLine. UPDATE: A BBC interview with her about it.

The following are the opening few grafs of the Daily Mail story, "Dame Vera Lynn storms into the top 20 with her CD of timeless tunes - making her more popular than rockers U2"

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:43 AM on 31st August 2009

Dame Vera Lynn yesterday became the oldest living artist to make it into the Top Twenty.

At the age of 92, she entered the albums chart with We'll Meet Again - The Very Best of Vera Lynn.

The album was released to coincide with the 70th anniversary on Thursday of the declaration of war.

Entering the charts at number 20, she overtook U2, the Stone Roses and Eminem.

A spokesman for her record company Decca said: 'She has proven that music of this vintage and significance can still resonate with the British public.'

The forces sweetheart kept up the spirits of millions of Britons with her songs and personality during the Second World War.
. . . .

Dame Vera Lynn was one of the truly great inspirational stars during World War II, who frequently entertained the troops in the field throughout the war, and often at personal risk.

In her case, Vera was already a veteran of that role when the United States actually entered hostilities in December of 1941, having also had a radio series beginning in 1940 called "Sincerely Yours."

She even undertook a trip to Burma, described in a book review of her newest memoir, Some Sunny Day.

At her own request she went to Burma, travelling on troop ships, in army trucks and on military aircraft. She doesn’t seem to have minded the discomforts at all. She’s almost cheerful when recollecting how she’d scoop her food "from under the solid layer of flies".

Lynn entertained audiences of thousands in the humidity and blazing heat, yet what she never forgot was that "what they needed was a contact from home rather than a concert".

UPDATE: In a very recent interview with the BBC, (ht: Peter at Bayou Renaissance Man) just a week ago on August 24th at the National Theater, Vera said, when asked, that the trip to Burma was the one memory of hers that really stood out. (Please watch. It is a wonderful video and interview, but embedding has unfortunately been disabled.) Here is how she responded to the BBC interviewer:

"For me, my visit to Burma, to be with the boys that were fighting out there because they were the 'forgotten 14th'** and it was wonderful to be able to actually be there and sing some of the songs, and take a little bit of home for this is what they wanted."

Back in February of this year, an article in the Guardian about the upcoming release of her latest memoir also noted the remarkable honor accorded her in the year 2000 --

"In 2000, a nationwide poll voted her the person who "most represents the spirit of the last century". No names were suggested to those taking part in the survey, but she won 21 per cent of the votes."

This lovely lady earned the affections of all of the Allies, one of the heartiest and bravest generations of all time. Anywhere. Ever.

One of her songs, and a title track on her new album, was the 1939 hit, "We'll Meet Again," (lyrics by Hughie Charles, music composed by Ross Parker) and a film by the same name in 1943, in which Lynn starred as singer named "Peggy Brown."

The song expressed in a simple way the enduring hope of returning that each soldier, sailor or airman embraced, as they went off to war. It also spoke to the emotions that their loved ones no doubt felt as well -- the hope that they would return alive.

Lynn recorded a whole series of songs over time, but if there was one that was her signature song it was that 1939 classic. Here is an extraordinary and rare recording of her singing the song to -- and as you can hear with -- the RAF.

There is no specific date indicated in this video, which was posted at YouTube last year by someone with the screen name and Channel, Old Shep80YearsOld.* But the track clearly reflects the early, almost quaint state of the audio technology at the time. And it also reflects the enthusiasm of the British flyers for her, and for this song.

A few examples of other songs she popularized at the time were her 1940 recording of, "The White Cliffs of Dover," an adapted Spanish song, in 1941, entitled "Yours," "A Nightingale Sang In Berkeley Square," and another 1941 song, "I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire." Toward the end of the war, she recorded, "When The Lights Go On Again."

During the 1950s, Vera Lynn became the initial trend-setter here in the United States for a generation of British musical stars to follow. She was very popular with American audiences. One of her songs of that era was, "Auf Wiederseh'n Sweetheart."

To me, one intriguing thing about the song "We'll Meet Again," that may have lent to its immense popularity, was that it cleverly turned back on itself right in the lyrics . . . as if it was timeless!

And so it was . . . and so it is!

. . .
So, will you please say hello,
To the folks that I know,
Tell them I won't be long.

They'll be happy to know,
That as you saw me go,
I was singing this song!
. . .

Few people today appreciate how much we all owe to folks like this wonderful and courageous lady. Let's just hope that her revival in Great Britain will trigger a corresponding fond recollection of her contributions here in the United States.

Her version was later (1964) featured in what was viewed as an ironic juxtaposition with exploding nuclear weapons at the end of the Stanley Kubrick film, "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

Here was Vera Lynn at the age of 77, singing a few of her standards, including "We'll Meet Again," on board the QE2, some 15 years ago in 1994, during the 50th anniversary commemoration ceremonies of the D-Day landing, June 6, 1944. Her husband, musician Harry Lewis, died a few years later in 1998. They were married way back in 1939.

Recently, she made a bit of news herself, raising a few questions regarding what the current fight is about in Afghanistan. Well, if she stirs up a bit of controversy, good for her. She's certainly entitled.

Regardless, it is surely some sunny day!

# # # # #

* The channel indicates his name is Theo, from the Netherlands, who is now 81 years old. He has posted several WW II era clips on his channel, OldShep80YearsOld at YouTube.

** THE FORGOTTEN ARMY — GENERAL WILLIAM SLIM’S 14th ARMY IN BURMA by Renfrewshire Libraries

2009-08-24T17:54:00.002-04:00

Kinda Catchy, No?

2009-08-05T17:15:00.022-04:00

Mr. Obama, Tear Down This Webpost!

Update, below:
President Obama took an oath of office pursuant to Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight of the United States Constitution, to wit:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now, you really have to wonder how that portion of his obligation to "preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" which, of course, includes protecting our Freedom of Speech, squares with him officially encouraging people to "snitch" on their fellow citizens to faceless political operatives in his Office because someone may have said something "fishy" about health insurance reform!

As we are all well aware, the very First Amendment to our Constitution, contained in a bill passed in the First Congress by then-Congressman, James Madison of Virginia in 1789, and which was thereafter ratified by the American people as of 1791, guarantees to all of us the Right of Free Speech -- among several others in the "Bill of Rights."

Yet, the Obama White House has posted on their official website, a post featuring an "eat-your-peas" looking former ABC reporter named Linda Douglass, who carries on about the so-called "misinformation" being spread, which post, pasted up by one "Macon Phillips," appallingly encourages Americans to snitch on their fellow citizens if they receive or spot any information about health insurance reform that seems "fishy" to them!

That White House webpost specifically recites, in pertinent part . . . and I quote:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Now, as an aside, I thought this public debate was supposed to be all about "healthcare reform" . . . not "health insurance reform." But let’s not get distracted.

The obvious intended intimidation factor, promoted through the White House official website, is the issue. Senator John Coryn is quite right.

As now reported, Mr. Obama now writes to his followers: "This is the moment our movement was built for."

Well, we say, "not by violating our rights!"

Tear down that webpost, Mr. President!

Update: Ed Morrissey at HotAir examines some of the ramifications in his post today, "Cornyn to Obama: Shut down Snitch Central" including a link to a Byron York piece on possible legal implications re: federal privacy law. York suggests it may not be illegal.

Ed's conclusion:

"Perhaps Congress needs to pass an Enemies List Law, since that’s exactly what this is. Note that only Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee seem concerned by this — even though Leahy chairs that committee."