Google News: Bias Much?

Grabbed this screenshot off the homepage a little while ago:

Nice picture, too - Romney with arms stretched wide, in the classic "I have no idea" pose.  Sweet crop job!

No doubt an article reprinted from The Nation - self-described as "the flagship of the left - by NPR ("the echo chamber of the left"?) deserves hyper-bold top of the page billing, right?

And the fact that the statement is demonstrably false?

Irrelevant.

Google News is not about getting the news out, or about getting the truth out.  It's about slanting both to fit their liberal narrative, and hopefully change that of the 2012 general election.

It's just the beginning, folks.  Just the beginning....

Putin Goes To Israel While Obama Pouts

You don't have to be best friends with Israel to realize their strategic importance, as well as their contribution to anti-Islamic intelligence and weapons technology.  Plus, their economy is going gangbusters.  Vladimir Putin is no ally of the Jewish state, but even he is smart enough to recognize the need to stop by and say hello every now and then:

Russian President Vladimir Putin is planning to make his first official visit to Israel since 2005, although the exact date for the visit has not yet been determined, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.

...Foreign Minster Avigdor Liberman met with Putin in Moscow in December.

According to a communiqué put out by Liberman’s office following the December meeting, he told Putin that Israel and Russia had different positions on a range of issues, from the diplomatic process with the Palestinians to current developments in the region, but that he hoped Israel’s position on matters such as Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas would get a hearing in Moscow.

Regarding the Palestinian issue, Liberman said Russia’s support for unilateral Palestinian moves does not bring an agreement closer or improve relations between Israel and the Palestinians....

With that, Liberman said ties between the countries are “very positive” 20 years after the renewal of diplomatic relations between them, and that this was manifest in an ongoing political dialogue, in economic and cultural ties and in keeping alive the memory of the Holocaust.

Reset, baby!

Seems like there's a pretty wide gulf, actually, between Israel and Russia, yet Putin will be visiting with Bibi nevertheless.  So where is Barack Obama, leader of the nation that once claimed to be Israel's greatest ally?

He's sulking like a bitch:

But though President Obama was willing to go to Israel while running for president in 2008, his deep dislike for Netanyahu has led him to avoid it since then. Though he spent his first three years in office picking fights with Israel, his deliberate avoidance of Israel in June 2009 when he spoke to the Arab world from Cairo (and made an insulting comparison between the Holocaust and the plight of the Palestinians) was resented even more than some of his comments about Jerusalem and the 1967 lines....

Those Democrats who have attempted to claim that Obama is Israel’s best friend ever in the White House — a claim that has been met with hilarity by many American Jews and incredulity by Israelis — the fact that Putin is going to Israel this summer while Obama still avoids it makes this argument even less credible.


Prediction: Obama attempts a visit to Israel sometime in the fall to shore up his Jewish base

Possible Outcomes:
A) Obama's can't go, as Israel is at war with Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, and the two-legged animals that live in -Gaza after bombing the Iranian nuclear sites.
B) Netanyahu jerks him around, not wanting to be used as a re-election prop for an anti-Semite
C) Obama goes and commits some unforgivable gaffe
D) Obama goes, but the trip is widely seen as it is - a desperate re-election ploy by an insincere man - and it winds up hurting him more than helping him.

I'd bet on D, unless it is pre-empted by A.  Either way, you can expect that once  Bibi and Vladimir get together, there will be much derision directed at a certain think-skinned, intellectually weak, incredibly naive leader of a once-great power....

In Dirty Jersey, Some Things Never Change...

Chris Christie may be doing a bang-up job as governor (new, even better polls here), and doing the best he can on a state level to reduce waste and trim budgetary fat, but the biggest problem in New Jersey remains the local municipalities and townships.  They're the ones levying the highest property taxes in the nation, not the governor, and they're the ones constantly finding different ways to squeeze their residents out of additional dollars via fees, fines, and usage charges in order to pad their own pockets, and pay off their political cronies.

Why Jersey is still unlivable, or why we hate government No. 739

There is a Dinosaurs attraction at Laurel Hill Park in Secaucus. It is located in the Meadowlands District which means no commercial parking fees allowed in recreational areas. But environmental impact fees aren’t. So The Jersey Journal reports the Secaucus council passed a resolution requiring a $10 environmental impact fee to encourage visitors to use public transportation. The town keeps the parking …. er impact fee, naturally. The park has a 90-foot long Argentinosaurus. No word on what creative way they’ve come up with to force him to fork over money to the town.

Welcome To Jersey. Now hand it over...

Are Obama's Attacks On Congress Helping...Congress??

And where do I apply to get a spot on Obama's enemies list?

Via Slate:

A new poll out this week suggests that Congress' approval rating continues to inch up from its all-time low four months ago, when a paltry 1 in 10 Americans thought lawmakers were doing a good job. 

 The new Gallup poll pegs Congress' latest job approval at 17 percent, a slight uptick from May's 15 percent rating, and seven points higher than February's low. 

 While lawmakers have seen their approval rating climb by 70 percent in a matter of months, let's remember when you're at virtual rock bottom there isn't much room to continue to fall....


The more Obama attacks Romney, the more Mitt rises in the polls.

The president tweets his support for the Wisconsin unions, their side gets decimated on re-election day.

Go after Arizona's immigration laws, watch the public race to its side.

Try to run, Truman-style, against a "do nothing" Congress?  Obama gets smacked down like Dewey, while Congress gains ground in the public eye...

Guess Americans are starting to think along the lines of the old Arab adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Which does not bode well for a president who must demonize others in order to find success for himself...

Martin Sheen Supports Mitt Romney?

Well, that's what it sounds like, right?

"....but I think he'll beat the hell out of them, frankly. When you put him and Mitt Romney together you'll see the difference between a man living an honest life and a hustling politician."


Well said, Martin!

Oh, wait...that was just a excerpt.  Here's the beginning of that statement:

Martin Sheen’s 2012 prediction: Obama by a landslide. 


The “West Wing” star thinks the president will easily win another term, he told The Australian.
“Don't get me started on the Republicans,” Sheen said. “They're going to jump on all the things he didn't do...."

Oh, well.  Another celebrity endorsement lost.  Crushing, that.

Although I don't know who, exactly, is influenced by Martin Sheen.  Me, I'm more interested in his son's endorsement...

Save Us From Chicago's Fate....

Great piece in City Journal about the struggles of Chicago.  From the "Second City" to a second-rate city, what seems like small yet accumulating troubles to some smells to me like the beginning of the end, Detroit-style.

Two examples that really jumped out at me:

At the city level, Mayor Richard M. Daley papered over deficits with such tricks as a now-infamous parking-meter lease. The city sold the right to parking revenues for 75 years to get $1.1 billion up front. Just two years into the deal, all but $180 million had been spent.


A fortune, squandered by the Chi-town Democrats in stunning fashion.  They sold a valuable commodity to get five minutes worth of relief, then are forced to go hunting for more sources of, ahem, "revenue".

Which leads me to ask:  If Obama and the Democrats get all the tax increases they want directed into Washington, DC, do you really think it will be plowed into anything creative or constructive?  Or will it just run the same trajectory as the Chicago "meter money"?  And once Obama has drained the rich, where will he turn next?

The hunting ground of the predatory species known as "liberals"...

The second warning lesson of Chicago:

An entrepreneur who wanted to open a children’s playroom to serve families visiting Northwestern Memorial Hospital was told that he needed to get a Public Place of Amusement license—which he couldn’t get, it turned out, because the proposed playroom was too close to a hospital...


Barack Obama wants to hire more government employees on the state and federal level.  Once on the job, they will need to justify their existence by regulating private industry out of existence.  And when the money runs out to pay them, well...

Maybe Obama can sell a national parking revenue deal to someone.  Or more likely, since he'd never fire a government employee, he's have to find another way to raise the revenues to pay his salary.  Which brings us to this:

Of the 15 largest cities in the United States in 2010, Chicago was the only one that lost population; indeed, it suffered the second-highest total loss of any city, sandwiched between first-place Detroit and third-place, hurricane-wrecked New Orleans. While New York’s and L.A.’s populations clocked in at record highs in 2010, Chicago’s dropped to a level not seen since 1910.


They're running.  Because while Barack Obama may not be chasing them down (yet), his spiritual and political brethren in Chicago are...

ABC Sees The Ground Crumbling Under Obama's Feet

Well, I an not totally surprised that ABC was the first network to take a step off the plantation - after all, they are the home of Jake Tapper, perhaps the Last Honest Man in old-school TV journalism.

No sugarcoating the disaster here:

First went the mood. Next, the muscle failed. Finally, to close out a horrific week for President Obama’s reelection bid, went the message.

The first week of June began with a monthly jobs report that solidified a sense of an anemic economic recovery. Then a Democratic loss in Wisconsin, coupled with staggering Romney campaign fundraising figures, revealed the strength of political organization on the right.

The week was punctuated by the most prominent voice in the party short of the president himself undercutting key Obama campaign messaging. To round out the rough patch, the president tried to turn the story lines around, but wound up delivering the kind of line that’s tailor-made for his opponents to make famous.

“The private sector is doing fine,” President Obama said Friday, at a press conference organized because it most certainly isn’t, at least in the minds of most Americans.

Taken together, the beginning of June 2012 may be remembered as a time period that shook the pillars of the Obama reelection effort. If nothing else, it’s shown the 2012 landscape to be so different from 2008 as to make assumptions based on four years ago seem worthless.


And that's the most important takeaway here. At least one member of the MSM has come to admit that whatever the "convention wisdom" is with incumbent presidents, it can be tossed out the window when it comes to Obama's er-election campaign.

And while the rest of the media does their best to cover-up the Gaffe-O-Matic that is Obama's mouth, ABC will not let go of Obama's infamous "The private sector is doing fine" remark, and will not let him blame Bush, either:

But the danger in the comment is that it undercuts the president’s effort to connect with skittish voters on the key issue of the election. The president needs to do more than blame his predecessor for inherited economic conditions; his challenge is to convey a sense of momentum around his policies for job growth.

.... Three-and-a-half years of the presidency has given Obama ownership of this economy. That fact may not be just fine for his prospect of a second term.

If the primary difference between Campaign 2008 and Campaign 2012 was that the media finally decided to do an honest job in its coverage, that alone would be enough for me...

Amanda Bynes Asks Obama For A Bailout

Well, there is no doubt Amanda Bynes contributed to Barack Obama.  Why shouldn't she get a return on her investment?

Amanda Bynes' DUI charge is now official, and the actress is turning to a higher power for help: President Barack Obama.

Amanda Bynes's mug shot. Puffy from alcohol, perhaps, or just the good life?

I took a screen shot of her last two tweets, the second one makes the first seem all the more ironic:

Well, she is a memeber of a powerful special interest group that Barack Obama is trying desperately to court: Young Hollywood go -getters:

Barack Obama privately met on Thursday morning at the Beverly Hilton Hotel with 25 young Hollywood stars to get them involved in his reelection.

Among those at the exclusive meeting were Ian Somerhalder, Jessica Alba, Zach Braff, Dianna Agron, Zachary Quinto, Sophia Bush, Jared Leto, Jeremy Renner, Tatyana Ali, Josh Radnor, Brandon Routh, Ben McKenzie, Bryan Greenberg, and Kal Penn, who tweeted afterwards, “Had a great morning w/ @BarackObama in LA. Talked about job creation, education, our troops, & getting YOU involved.”

Many of the stars took to Twitter following the get-together to share their thoughts.

Somerhalder wrote, “Totally surreal morning. Met up with some friends, had coffee with President Obama now tweeting.The 21st century.”

Leto tweeted, “Great meeting with @BarackObama this morning. Thanks Mr. President for the inspiring words and thoughts .#ObamaTheRightChoice.”

Obama with Bush...

“Got up bright & early to hear @BarackObama speak w an awesome group #YoungAmerChat,” said Alba.

Routh noted he was “Honored to speak w/ POTUS @BarackObama again today! Looking forward to helping #GetTheVoteOut.”

Seems to me Obama has to help out Amanda now. Why, any of these young stars could be in trouble tomorrow, and if they know the president isn't really behind them, how can they go out and campaign for him in confidence? And without Kumar (or is it Harold? No, Kumar) giving America's youth guidance on how to vote in November, why, they might go into the voting booth and - in a moment of confusion - pull the wrong lever!

No, they need celebrities and twitter hashtags to get it right, and Obama can't afford to get it wrong.  He has to free Amanda Bynes.  And after all, it is a natural progression from Election Night 2008:

Used to be Obama supporters wanted him to pay their mortgage and buy them gas. To give them money from his Obama stash...


Why should poor Amanda suffer a worse fate than Solyndra?  It's all about scratching each other backs, and Amanda knows it.  So does the president.  Which is why I expect Miss Bynes to get off the hook quickly and quietly, and go back to strutting her stuff and pimping for The One, along with the rest of her "Young 1%'ers".

Whereas I will simply take any Rule 5 love I can get from RS McCain & Company...

Weep For Sally Quinn...

After a lifetime spent in Washington D.C, she bemoans the changes that have come over the capital's social scene. I won't argue with her first observation, although I am not sure the embarrassing spectacle that the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner has become is necessarily the end of the world as we know it:

I was shoved up against Callista’s [Gingrich] hair and nearly broke my nose. It was scary. I felt as if I had been caught in a crowded theater and someone had yelled fire.

It was telling that Vanity Fair had bought more tables at the dinner than most of the Washington news organizations.

On the way home (we skipped the after-parties), I suddenly realized that this grotesque event signaled the end of power as we have known it. That dinner — which seemed to have more celebrities, clients and advertisers than journalists and politicians — was the tipping point.


Fair enough. But her analysis, and woe-is-me the barbarians have entered the palace take on the change that has enveloped DC is almost too painful to read:

Today, money trumps power.

Journalists used to be powerful. But now there are so many 25-year-old bloggers, many of them showing up on the TV talk shows, that the old-timers are struggling to catch up, tweeting their hearts out and using hip language like “hashtags.” And those young bloggers care about money, too. There aren’t enough jobs, and newspapers and Web sites are struggling to make profits. Even the people on top are insecure. Nobody knows when he or she is going to be let go; the guillotine drops on media stars with alarming frequency.


Bitter much, Sally?  How dare those young up-and-comers threaten your God-given right to seniority, security, and undeserved respect.  But that's OK, you've grabbed the crutch from the Wisconsin Democrats and taken it as your own:

Interest groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,Citizens United and American Crossroads have become more and more powerful, beating out everyone else in the game.

In the New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin writes that the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates, will change things dramatically: “The Roberts Court, it appears, will guarantee moneyed interests the freedom to raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time, in order to win elections.”

There you have it. Money is power. The fundraiser has replaced the Washington dinner party.


And who was the first president in U.S history to refuse public funding for a general election, Sally?  Who was the elected official who promised to raise a billion dollars for his re-election campaign?  Who is the guy who has attended a record 150 fundraisers while the nation's economy remains mired in neutral? Who was the man who set the mad money wheel into motion?

Sally has forgotten the name of Barack Hussein Obama.  Except when she complains that he's too busy doing fundraisers to attend her dinner parties.  But that, of course, is the fault of Citizens United.

Here's the "ouch" part:

Washington has become a community of small groups of people, mostly staying within their circles, occasionally making a foray out into the bigger world to large events, only to be turned off by the endless corporate “fundraiserness” of it all. How special can you feel when you know you have to pay to go to an event and then get a bad seat on top of that?

Hey! I used to matter, you know...

Sally enters our world, and is shocked, shocked to see what it feels like to live among the powerless.  Fortunately, we have Citizen's United, and our bloggers.

But maybe this small-group trend is not such a bad thing. Maybe, as in one of those post-apocalyptic movies where the planet has been destroyed by war, people will begin to make their own lives.


The death of the Washington dinner party is akin to a nuclear holocaust?  Way to show your real- world bona fides, Sally!

That’s what Ben and I have done. In the past, we might have attended five-course dinners a couple of nights a week, with a different wine for each course, served in a power-filled room of politicians, diplomats, White House officials and well-known journalists. Those gatherings don’t exist anymore. Now, we host and go to small dinners with close friends...


Just like the rest of the 99%.  Sally should be proud that she's actually living the lifestyle that she's championed for the rest of us.  She seems to be struggling with it a bit though, although her essay concludes with the hope that she might find happiness in her somewhat simpler life.  Simpler being a comparison to what she once had, but still - I have no doubt her current "smaller" dinner excursions with "friends"are still more lavish and "powerful" than anything most of us plebes will experience in our lifetimes.

Next up for Sally: Life under Obamacare!  Hope you weren't as attached to your annual mammograms and checkups as you were to your five course dinners with the movers and shakers of Washington...

Mothers, Don"t Let Your Daughters Grow Up To Be Liberals...

...unless, of course, you feel this kind of talk is what you want your little girl exposed to, and this type of behavior is what you want her to emulate.  Via Gateway Pundit, we get a glimpse of what posters are on sale at "Netroots", the angry Left's annual Woodstock:

How about that slogan on the lower right?

“I’m a slut. I vote. And so does everyone I sleep with. And you’re about to be more f*cked than I am.”

Keep your daughters away from these people....and educate them well...

When they see a liberal [easily identifiable as someone possessing almost any of these traits: Wearing an Obama t-shirt, carrying bongos, driving a Prius (or any car with an Obama bumper sticker), toting a "green" grocery bag, wearing a flowery dress or a "Che" t-shirt, sporting thick, non-prescription glasses, having no muscle tone but multiple facial piercings, all while acting condescending & intolerant yet blithely ignorant all at once] teach them to scream:

"The Private Sector Is Doing Fine" Was No Gaffe...

...I don't know if Obama really believes it or not.  But he needs us to believe it, in order to create public pressure on Congress to implement Stimulus 2.0.  John Podhoretz:

In part, Obama needs to be able to say, “The private sector is fine,” because a healthy private sector is essential for his plans to increase the size of government — after all, the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

Obama’s explanation for the slowdown in economic growth is that the public sector is hurting, and that’s where Washington must step in and act.

“Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes, cuts initiated by, you know, governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government,” he said. “And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments.”


Which is accomplished, in the president' mind, by increased government spending, both at the federal and local level, to be paid for by...increases in taxation.  And since that tax increase would primarily come out of private sector businesses and their employees, he needs to convince us of its strength, so that he may sap it.

Some people, pointing to the overall unemployment figures and lack of participation in the labor market, claims Obama's bizarre statement proves how out of touch he is with the economy.  And no doubt to a certain extent that is true.

But what I find amazing is that after the whipping the Democrats and the unions took in Wisconsin in an election based on the very same premise - that the growth of government and its employees should be the paramount consideration to the citizenry - that the president would whip out the very same losing argument less than 72 hours later as a national prescriptive for our economic woes.

Did he really think he still had the persuasive power to convince us that down is up?  I don't think he did; when he spoke the now-infamous line, his voice was businesslike, but devoid of its usual emotion & cadence:




No, even Barack Obama doesn't believe his own bullshit anymore.  But with his agenda in tatters, and nowhere to turn save right, he continues pushing the same failed remedies as always, defensible only with half-baked lies that make his supporters wince and his detractors howl.

But what else can he do? Like Richard Gere in "An Officer and a Gentleman", he's got nowhere else to go...

If Susan Rice Is Proud Of This UN "Response"...

...then she needs to be gone.  Or we need to leave the UN.  Both, preferably, and as soon as possible.

This is what you get when you put liberals in charge of foreign policy - assertions that symbolic gestures are equivalent to concrete actions, and should thus be equally praised:

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tweeted on Thursday: “Nations of the world just stood together in silence for the victims of Syria.” I am not sure which is worse — that this is the U.N. response to mass murder, or that Rice thought this reflected well on her efforts there.

Because doing something - anything - to actually change the reality on the ground in Syria would be...messy.  And our well-coiffed UN representatives are not about to get their hands dirty, no matter how many women and children are mercilessly slaughtered by Bashir al-Assad.

This is what happens when you speak loudly and carry a limp dick:

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the monitors came under small-arms fire Thursday as they tried to reach the site of the reported new massacre in Qubair, a small village in Hama province. Speaking at a U.N. General Assembly session, Ban said the incident occurred after the U.N. monitors were blocked from entering Qubair to investigate the alleged killings.


Don't worry, Sue.  Your intentions are good, and that's all that matters.  Just keep standing there together silently, I'm sure it will all work out for the best...

Wisconsin Flop Is A Democratic Strategy Fail

Divide and conquer has been the Obama M.O. since the run-up to the 2010 midterms ("punish your enemies!", shrieked The One).  How'd that work out in the most important election in the run-up to the 2012 general election?

President Obama is convinced that he will be reelected by dividing the country and cherry picking the discontented. He sets poor against rich, women against Republicans, Catholics against Planned Parenthood, lenders against borrowers, environmentalists against oil drillers – every issue becomes a conflict...Democrats tried to divide Wisconsin into people who were for or against public unions. At the end, the strategy crumbled, because voters saw only one state, one budget, one common good.


Or maybe because there is more of "them" than Obama's "us":

Maybe average Wisconsin voters didn’t consciously know each household must pay $1,563 in extra taxes every year for the next 30 years just to fund public pension shortfalls. But they probably realized they don’t have a pension anymore, even if they have jobs. And any lucky enough to have jobs know that before Scott Walker became governor, they were paying higher taxes while working harder and longer at lower pay with slashed benefits.

 Hey politicians, wake up: This is not just about jobs; it’s about which jobs.

Any politicians who think voters who lost jobs, took pay cuts, gave up benefits, and surrendered any hope of retirement will quietly pay more for those who shared no sacrifice are going to be in for a shock on election day. Reality always wins.


Or so you would think.  But in California, Jerry Brown hunkers down on the ranch, closing his eyes and just knowing that when he opens them up the flying saucer will be there, ready to take him and the true believers to Blisstonia:

In what must be seen as the last piece of bad news for liberals from Tuesday’s election results, California Governor Jerry Brown conceded late yesterday that his attempt to impose an extra $1 tax on cigarettes was turned down by the state’s voters by a narrow margin. But Brown is undaunted by the 51-49 percent defeat for the special tax. He is still planning to put even more wide-ranging tax increases on the ballot in November in an effort to force the most populous state’s citizens to dig deeper to fund the government’s growing deficit. Brown plans to force a vote on sales tax increases as well as imposing higher rates on the wealthy to get closer to balancing a state budget that is projected to be $15.7 billion in the red. He seems sure it will pass.

Advocates of the cigarette tax hike were shocked by its defeat....But even that altruistic-sounding premise (backed by the endorsement of people like cyclist and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong) couldn’t outweigh the general disgust of the public with government pocketing more of the people’s money.

There is also the possibility that even Californians are getting sick of the way the nanny state that Brown supports is not just legislating morality but attempting to impose new restrictions on individual liberty.

This week’s defeat for higher taxes in California as well as support for restrictions on union power there and elsewhere is a wake-up call for politicians to realize that the ideas of Scott Walker and not those of Jerry Brown are the wave of the future.


So divide and conquer failed. Trying to convince the voters that public sector union employees deserve more of your money failed.  Trying to con voters out of cash in California by telling them it was for their own good failed.  "Redistribution" failed.  There seems to be not one policy platform or campaign technique that the Democrats are running on/with that has any favor with the American people whatsoever.

Will they "wake up", as many now seem to implore?

Just ask Jerry Brown...

In 1996, Mitt Romney Was Running Bain Capital. Where Was Obama At That Time?

The answer, sadly, will not surprise you.  Via the indispensable Stanley Kurtz ( his "Radical-In-Chief" is perhaps the definitive work on the formation of Barack Obama's political ideology), we find out what Obama was up to while Romney was creating jobs and wealth:

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows: Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.


More at the link.  Kurtz  tried to expose Obama's leftist political affiliations prior to the 2008 election, but he was ignored by the media as the Obama campaign worked furiously to deny his radical ties, and cover them up.

I am sure Kurtz will be ignored again, but there are much louder megaphones available today to conservative voices than there were four years ago, and there are more ears receptive to hearing how such a well-spoken man  - whom we were assured, by the media, would govern as a moderate - could make such a hard Left turn.

Time to compare and contrast our two candidates, perhaps?

So while Romney was running Bain Capital, Obama joined a leftist third party controlled by ACORN and dedicated to turning the United States into a massive, European-style welfare state. If Romney’s background at Bain is a fit topic for discussion, so is Obama’s New Party tie.

The vetting of Obama has finally begun in earnest.  And I think stories like Kurtz's will find a larger and more interested audience than the Times's tall tales of bullying and horse-dressing...

No Surprise: Scott Walker Took A Chunk Of Union Votes

No a majority, but a nice figure, and it illustrates why even the term "union member" must now be qualified with which union one belongs to:

Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s successful battle to keep his job during this week’s Wisconsin recall election got a lift from an unexpected quarter — voters from union households.

And Republicans nationally took heart yesterday from the labor support, with exit polls from Tuesday’s recall election showing that 38 percent of Walker’s voters came from homes that include union members.

Walker’s labor vote was a surprise for the first-term incumbent, given the outcry over his policies that wiped out collective-bargaining rights and automatic dues collection for public-employee unions. And that chunk of the union vote contributed to his comfortable 7 point win, 53-46, over Democrat Tom Barrett.

Tom Fabitz, 66, a retired machinist and member of the United Steel Workers Union, said he voted for Walker because he brought taxes and spending under control. “Walker is saving the state money. You have to trim the fat someplace,” said Fabitz, a Marine vet and football fanatic.


And there you have it.  The recall vote in Wisconsin, and all the discord and chaos sown over the last year-plus, has not be driven by "the unions", but simply the public-sector unions.  It was strictly  the employees of the government - and their paid-for representatives within the Democratic party -  which usurped the democratic process in order to put their own personal needs over the public good which they claim to serve.

Ironically, Scott Walker may have to thank a few "Locals" for helping him finally slay the undead...

What private sector union members are beginning to realize is that every taxpayer dollar that is committed to feathering the bed of public-sector unionists is a dollar that is taken away from other things the government can be - and needs to be - doing, such as, oh...desperately needed infrastructure projects, perhaps? New roads to replace crumbling ones, improved public transportation networks, remodeled schools, revamped public spaces...you name it, we need it.

And who would get hired to do those jobs? Union carpenters, electricians, communication workers,construction workers...you know, all those blue-collar jobs that the government cannot seem to create, only destroy.

In fact, cutting government employees and reducing the benefit packages to a private-sector level would likely act as a stimulus all of its own, freeing up money to rebuild local and national infrastructure.  It would lower unemployment levels, reduce government spending, and create a trickle-down economic benefit as well, as thousands of furloughed union members could finally get off the dole and back to work.

The next union battle will not be against the Republicans, but among themselves, as more and more private sector unionists realize they have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by cutting the freeloading members of the public sector unions loose.

Which bodes very well for the Republicans this fall...

Wisconsin Postmortem: Bill Paxton Speaks....

...for Democrats, hardcore liberals, and public sector unions in this short clip:






His line at the 2:58  mark of the video below is  clearly directly at the clueless Obama campaign:

Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal!





"Fuckin' A", indeed...

The Day That Liberalism Died

So, bye-bye, douchy liberal guys,
Drove their GM to the ATM
 But the cash ran dry
And them good old Lefties were smokin' weed and getting high,
Singin' this'll be the day that we die
Scott Walker won't lets us steal the people's pie...
-with apologies to Don McClean


So, how does democracy work, bitches?

Total votes for Walker in 2010: 1,128,941
Total votes for Walker in 2012: 1,331,076

That thud you hear is liberalism dropping dead onto the floor.  Not smart enough to sit quietly and wait for the economy to recover while most Americans struggled, they demanded no interruption in the lavish benefits and annual raises they were accustomed to.  Even if it meant raising taxes on folks barely scraping by.  They were entitled to it, after all.

Uh huh.  Seems like even the friendly folks in blue states disagree.  And if I may take a little credit locally - Wisconsin is not the trail-blazer here, New Jersey was, electing Chris Christie, who promised to tame the public sector unions, and tossing out union crony Crooked Jon Crozine.

Anyone see his approval ratings lately in Blue Jersey?  Somewhere, the rotted corpse of liberalism shudders...


So, as the dust clears, let's see who's the most clueless about what happened in Wisconsin last night.  Maybe this dumb bastard, who claims that somehow democracy has died because his side lost an election:






Perhaps this clueless schmuck, who apparently hasn't picked up a newspaper in at least a month:

   '


Or the Obama campaign:

...no one can dispute the strong message sent to Governor Walker. Hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites from all walks of life took a stand against the politics of division and against the flood of secret and corporate money spent on behalf of Scott Walker... 
 ...Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod tweeted: "Bad night in Boston...WI raises big questions for Mitt."


Sure does. With a reformist Republican winning so handily in a blue state,. he's got to be shaking his head and wondering, "what sort of resources do I need to apply there to make the state mine in the 2012 general election?"

CNN, Downplaying the Scott Walker Victory Just A Bit...

Nice caption above those obscene numbers:

Gee - a 15 point margin by an embattled Republican in a recall election in a blue state that may decide the fates of public employee unions nationwide, and that's the best you can do?  "CNN projects he'll keep his job...?"

Nothing else to see here folks.  Move along...

Ah, I'm too giddy to care, anyway.  Let the babies have their bottle...

I like R.S. McCain's "conventional wisdom"...

...after hearing so much crap from the Beltway crowd about why Obama will win in 2012 despite his many, many, many apparent flaws (why, he'll just run against Congress like Truman, and the economy will be improving by then, and we all know Romney was fatally wounded in the primaries.  Women, of course, will flock to Obama on election day, and besides - he's just so damn likable), I am digging Stacey McCain's own simple & straightfoward CW on why Obama won't win.

It's based on historical precedent, which is why you haven't heard it from the media first - to them, history started in 2008, and anything prior is no more than what they claim it is, or what is useful for the Democrats and Barack Obama at any particular moment.

But facts are pesky things:

...Romney is running a serious campaign, in contrast to Stacy’s cousin’s 2008 phone-in. Given that the Left appears to achieve success only when running against the record of an incumbent, (for example,  Bush 41, Bush 43) standing by actual accomplishment seems to elude them (Carter, Obama?) except when running against some tired old warhorse (Dole, McCain).


Romney's blood, surprisingly, runs hot. And Obama has no record to run on, and as the incumbent, can only direct the free-floating anger of the American people at...himself.  Uh-oh...

We'll call this "Stacey's Rule".  And we will refer back to it, when the media tries to darken our days with tales of Obama rising as the general election draws nigh...

Obama Enters The Wisconsin Fray...

...with a "tweet":

Well, less entering the fray and more dipping you toe in the water,  ready to withdraw and flee at the slightest sensation of a chill.

Nah, I'm just being cynical. That tweet was a gutsy call.  Possibly the most audacious tweet in 500 years. Do any one of you have a doubt that if this tweet fails that this guy will be a one-term president? This guy is willing to do the right thing and risk losing...