More thoughts on the "Buffett Rule"....

Wrote a piece yesterday likening the Buffet Rule to an new Alternative Minimum Tax, the one that was originally designed to apply to a few hundred people and now ensnares millions of middle-class taxpayers.  Would like to add some thoughts on how, besides being another government wealth confiscation theme, it would be an almost immediate job-killer as well...

Charles Gasparino in the New York Post:

A “soak the rich” plan makes no sense in under current economic conditions. Soaking the only people left with disposable income to spend and keep working-class Americans working is one of the dumber things you can do at a time when you need the rich to spend more, not less.

In the real world, millionaires react the same way everyone else does when they have less disposable income: They cut back.

And “millionaires” often own the same small businesses that the president vows he wants to help to expand so they can hire more workers.
How does hitting small-businesses owners --whose profits often get taxed at personal-income rates -- with even more taxes incentivize them to hire more workers?

Don’t expect Obama & Co. to supply the answer....

George Savage points out that Obama, with his typically brilliant math skills, has defined "millionaire' as anyone making north of $200K.  You know them as...small business owners:

...how can you, as sole proprietor of the local dry cleaner chain, fund the purchase of new EPA-mandated equipment for your shops? The new machinery, your accountants tell you, will last a long time—at least until the next EPA-mandated upgrade—so you can’t deduct the six-figure purchase price from taxable income this year. And the IRS just siphoned off most of your free cash at the “millionaire and billionaire” rate—thanks, Warren! There’s always savings, but your account is still tapped out from the new mandatory low-flow toilets in the recently upgraded ADA-compliant bathrooms, illuminated by costly-but-dim fluorescent fixtures.

You have three choices: 1) lay some employees off and close one of your shops; 2) borrow the money. Debt is tax-free and interest is tax-deductible. Such a deal! What could possibly go wrong with this approach? 3) Go out of business entirely, exchanging entrepreneurship for a job with a paycheck. Maybe your new company will enjoy a waiver from federal taxes, like the one General Electric seems to have....

More economic madness from inside the liberal asylum. I hear Obama is going to do another "speaking tour" to pimp the "Buffett Rule". Expect it to go over as well as Spinal Tap's "new direction"....

"Day of Rage": Another Leftist Fail!

From FOX 5 in New York, a report on the "Day of Rage" protests that organizers hoped would bring Wall Street to their collective knees:

The second protest for the “Day of Rage” rally wasn’t nearly as big as the one held Saturday, as only about 300 protesters were on hand.

The number of protesters, many of whom camped out near the Stock Exchange, was college students who can’t find employment and want to see economic reforms.

Despite the sparse crowd, there were protesters from various organizations with signs and wanted their voices to be heard...

Don't you kids have curfews?            

The New York Post was a little less kind:

Only about 300 protesters, mostly college kids and aging hippies, showed up near the Stock Exchange for yesterday’s anti-Wall Street rally -- far fewer than the 20,000 that organizers of the so-called global “Day of Rage” had predicted.

Police barricades were put up to protect both the exchange and the iconic “Charging Bull” statue on Broadway. The barriers were hardly needed.

Mouth opened wide in anger, patriotic breasts perky with pride...

Pathetic.  Talk about the failure of liberalism to catch hold in the American psyche! Even with president Obama and the media running a non-stop class warfare campaign at a 24/7 clip for months/years, and with all types of so-called "organizational muscle" (funded by dubious donations) behind this rally, ordinary Americans could not have been less interested in participating.  Perhaps we've realized that college campus sit-ins - and faculty teach-ins -  are no substitutes for an executable, workable plan to right our economic ship.  And sorry - shaking a fist at an office building does not count as "policy"...  

Alas, failure is no deterrent for the perpetually stupid, and you can be sure this won't be the last futile protest of this kind.  Nor does the president seem to be allowing this rejection of his entire worldview to enter his consciousness, as his newest gambit it...a tax on the fat cats.

It's sad.  It would be funny, too, if these halfwits, dimwits, and nitwits weren't dragging the rest of us down with them...

Nice imagery, considering the suffering some parts of the East Caost suffered from Irene.  Still - they wanted a Hurricane of rage, they got a late summer shower of indifference...

The Problem With The "Buffett Tax"...

....is that within a few years, it will wind up being the "Main Street Tax", as it will likely hit the middle class along with what remains of the rich...

Past as prologue.  Look at the history of the Alternative Minimum Tax:

Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr prompted the enactment action [in 1970] with an announcement that 155 high-income households had not paid a dime of federal income taxes. The households had taken advantage of so many tax benefits and deductions that reduced their tax liabilities to zero.

So it was designed as a very specific tax, with limited to zero impact on the average American. So how's that working out?

Although the AMT was originally enacted to target 155 high-income households, it now affects millions of middle-income families each year. The number of households that pay the tax has increased significantly in the last decade: In 1997, for example, 605,000 taxpayers paid the AMT; by 2008, the number of affected taxpayers jumped to 3.9 million, or about 4% of individual taxpayers. A total of 27% of households that paid the AMT in 2008 had adjusted gross income of $200,000 or less. [and that's an interesting figure, as it is the household level Obama constantly wants to raise taxes at, despite his oration about "millionaires" -ed.]

The primary reason for AMT growth is the fact that the AMT exemption, unlike regular income tax items, is not indexed to inflation. This means that income thresholds do not keep pace with the cost of living. As a result, the tax affects an increasing number of households each year, as workers’ incomes adjust to inflation and surpass AMT eligibility levels.

So the last "millionaire's tax" wound up becoming a middle class tax.  So why won't the Obama administration, the paragon of "fairness", overhaul the tax?

AMT raised $26 Billion of $1,031 Billion total individual income tax in 2008

Ah - because it totals almost 25% of income tax revenues, that's why. And, it doesn't hurt - as we mentioned above - that it actually kicks it at/below the $200K level, which is where Obama has always defined "rich". It ain't about fair, folks, it's about the government taking what's ours and making it theirs, at the point of a gun.   So when you hear this about the "Buffett Tax" -

The millionaires’ rate would affect only 0.3 percent of taxpayers, they said. That would be fewer than 450,000; 144 million returns were filed for 2010.  
 
-just remember the AMT.  And remember that Ben Bernake is running the printing press day and night, churning out the Benjamins in order to pay for Obama's fantasy world.  So if you think you'll never be a millionaire and this new tax will never affect you, think twice.  In a few years, you'll be breaking a million dollar bill (we'll call them "Obamas") just to fill up your tank.  If you can afford to, after you've paid the VAT, the AMT, and your "Buffett Tax".....

The Jewish Civil War: Identifying The "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys"

With a Jewish Civil War (between American Jews, for the moment) now underway, ignited by the election of Republican Bob Turner in NY-9 last week, the question many might be asking is, "Who can we tell is on what side?  I mean, they all will sometimes wear yarmulkes, and most do have large noses, but some will trick us by spending freely or having Aryan features!"

It's a valid question, folks.  And it is somewhat easy to answer. 

Good Jews:
Conservative Jews.  Of course.
Liberal Jews -  provided they are willing to be honest about the world around them, do not propagate on behalf of obvious leftist falsehoods, and are capable of defending their beliefs on intellectual and/or moral grounds, as opposed to resorting to insults and name-calling so typical of the Left.
Apolitical Jews.  In a free country, no one forces you to take a stand.  However, complainimg about the outcome is unacceptable, if one did not take sides in the battle. Fairly warned be ye...

Bad Jews:
The rest.  Primarily, Jews that support policies that are clearly bad for their people and for Israel in order to maintain fealty to a higher power: Leftism, or the Democratic party. Clearest sign:  Jews that are willing to take the tools of their enemies - the hateful blood libels and vicious stereotypes that have cause pogroms for centuries - and use them against their own people for personal gain or political purposes. Think the Kapos...or the folks who write at Tikkun.

Examples would include DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who, after her party's loss in NY-9, was the first to divide "good" and "bad" Jews:

“In this district, there is a large number of people who went to the polls tonight who didn’t support the president to begin with and don’t support Democrats — and it’s nothing more than that,”

And Congressman Henry Waxman, who busted out classic antisemitic smears against Jews who defied The Party's orders:

There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth...

But these two made it easy.  And some confusion is to be expected. And some Jews themselves may be confused about which side they are on!  So here are a  few more hints to determine if the Jew you see raising rhetorical spear is one of the good guys, or one of the liberal "bad" guys.

If you spend more time worrying about whales and dolphins than about Jews, then you just might be a Jewish liberal.

If you think that the essence of Jewish ethics is supporting the political agenda of the left wing of the Democratic Party, then you just might be a Jewish liberal.

If you think the highest priority for your ‘Temple’ is to have a good recycling program, then you just might be a Jewish liberal.

If you think that American pressure on Israel to make peace is necessary and valuable, then you just might be a Jewish liberal.

If you do not understand why America still needs a strong military, then you just might be a Jewish liberal.

If you seriously doubt that the media are dominated by liberals, then you just might be a Jewish liberal.

If you think the Israeli settlements are the main obstacle to peace, then you just might be a Jewish liberal.

Well, I hope this primer helped. This war has barely begun; I expect it to heat up this Sunday after the AM talk shows, assuming the media has the courage to bring up the "Jewish Question" at all.   Follow this blog for updates on what will be a long, and quite possibly ugly, battle.  Because civil wars always seem to draw the most blood...

Obama's "Fiat Fiasco": Can we subtract this from jobs "created or saved"?

Fiat owns about 54% of Chrysler, which it essentially purchased from the US Government after they bought it at a bankruptcy sale with other people's money.   Ah, 2009, and those heady days of optimism:

The sale will fulfill President Barack Obama’s promise of a “quick” trip through bankruptcy and protection of 54,000 jobs. Chrysler Group now starts fresh with lower debt, fewer expenses, reduced labor costs, a well-capitalized financing arm and access to fuel-efficient vehicles and world markets through its Fiat partnership.

The court’s decision allows the creation of a “vibrant new car company” with Fiat, Chrysler said in a statement...Chrysler may begin selling the first Fiat vehicles in as little as 18 months.

So how did Obama do with this deal? Not quite Solyndra....but in some respects, maybe worse:

Alfa Romeo has delayed the U.S. introduction of several key models by at least another year and has cancelled plans to build a mid-sized SUV at Chrysler Group's factory in Toledo, Ohio.

Wester's announcement marks the latest in a series of delays of the U.S. return of Alfa Romeo, the sporty brand of Fiat S.p.A....

Two things you won't be seeing in local dealerships...

So what of Obama's "promise" to save 54,000 jobs?  Broken, like his economy.  I have to imagine that some folks were being kept on the Chrysler payroll in anticipation of the Fiat-owned Alfa Romeo workload; I expect the Toledo Unemployment Office is about to get a bit busier.
That is, if the government allows it.  Another spike in jobless figures can't be good news for the president, you know.  I would not be surprised if  Chrysler might have to pay additional, unforeseen "interest" on all that government money they took. As in paying thousands of employees to sit around and do nothing. Lie down with fleas, and all that....

Another shrewd business decision by Barack H. Obama, super-genius.  I see GM stock is at $22 today, and how much of that sh*t were the taxpayers forced to buy at $33?  If he was my investment manager, I'd have canned his ass a long time ago.. Then again, I never would have hired him in the first place.

Bottom line?  The next time Democrats crow about jobs saved or created by the stimulus/bailouts, ask them how many we should subtract based on the Fiat Fiasco...

Barack Obama: Hyper-Partisan Hypocrite

Barack Obama, upon accepting his party's nomination in 2008:

“What I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism. The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party.”

Barack Obama yesterday, speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (after praising La Raza, admitting he's made it harder to deport illegals, and again hinting about unilateral executive action on immigration):

“But if we’re being honest, we know the real problem isn’t the members of Congress in this room. It’s the members of Congress who put party before country because they believe the only way to resolve our differences is to wait 14 months till the next election.”

I would not say that Obama has no principles, for he certainly does - and alas, they differ little from Karl Marx. But I will say that he will say whatever he needs to say at the moment to get elected, and will tell whatever lies he needs to in order to cover up an agenda he knows is unpalatable to the majority of Americans.

Zero credibility, combined with what Jay Cost calls "a staggeringly high arrogance to excellence ratio". Is there any wonder why America has tuned this guy out?

Via Contentions...

Henry Waxman & The Liberal Jews Launch Their Civil War!

Well, that didn't take long.  This was me, yesterday:

So the question is, will the "Reform Jews" lead a charge against their more conservative brethren? Oh, you betcha. Reform Jews oft are more wedded to the Democratic party than to Judaism, and more beholden to liberal orthodoxy than to the Bible. They will lash out at Conservative and Orthodox Jews, trying to paint them as extremist radicals within the faith, and not to be taken as seriously as...Reform Jews. They will call them hidebound, racist, ignorant, and Israel-firsters - you know, everything that liberals say about conservatives on a daily basis...

And here is the vile Henry Waxman (D-CA), today:

“I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry,” he said. “But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”

Two slurs here: One is the tired "anyone who votes Republican is clearly stupid" liberal nonsense, as Waxman seems to claim Jewish votes for Republicans are based in their "misunderstandings" of Obama's policy. (If you hear a scrubbing sound, that's Waxman and his ilk desperately trying to wipe clean Barack Obama's long history of antisemitism, as well as his mistrust of Benjamin Netanayu and the Israeli government).  Interesting.  So Jews, once thought to be among society's smartest members, are now lumped in with the rest of the "redneck America" because they stepped out of line in the voting booth.  Not unlike how all of America turned racist the day of the 2010 midterm elections, despite voting for a black man for president for 2008.  Weak.

The second slur  - so, so offensive  - is the canard of Jews putting their profits, their cash, their ill-gotten gold and diamonds, above the welfare of society and the nation ("they want to protect their wealth").  Unfortunately, the opposite has been true - Jews have put their own self-interest last, and have consistently voted Democratic, even as it has become the party of antisemitism, and Israel-bashing, as we naively believe that the donkey are somehow the party of "social justice".  Now those chickens have come home to roost, as the party has turned on them, viciously, at the slightest hint of disloyalty.

Wait, it will only get uglier.  Waxman is horrible here, no more than a concentration camp "Kapo" - a fellow Jew who worked for the Nazis, tormenting the prisoners, in order to buy himself a little more time.  With his remarks he is opening up the dam from which a torrent of liberal antisemitism will flow forth, churning with bitter, black bile.

How will American Jews react, once the flood is unleashed?  Will they crawl back, scared, to the Democrats, in order to hold back the siege, or will they stand their ground and fight?

No clue.  But the civil war between American Jews is underway...

Does NY-9 bode ill for New Jersey's Rush Holt?

Let us, for at least this moment, take DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz at her word, as she speaks about the loss of the perennially Democratic seat in NY-9 in Tuesday's special election:

"It’s a very difficult district for Democrats,” said Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, noting its Democratic margins there tend to be the second lowest of all the districts in New York City.

Ah, OK, Debz. We'll take you at your word, despite the 3-1 registration edge held by Democrats in NY-9. If a D+5 district is "difficult" for the party to hold, well, there ought to be a lot of incumbent D's soiling their panties right around now.

Well, 50 of them, according to the NRCC. And one of them jumps out at me:

NJ-12   D+5  RUSH HOLT

Ah, yes, Mr. Holt. Rush "Lefty"  Holt first won election to the House in 1998 by a whisker, and by even less in 2000 as he won by 480 votes that showed up fashionably late, Democratic-style.  He was helped by redistricting in 2002, and won his elections through 2008 with an average of 62% of the vote.

Until last year, where it got a bit closer, as Holt triumphed by a mere 53%-47% margin.  Interesting....

Why should Holt worry? Well, he's got a large Jewish constituency in his district, and while it is less conservative than the one that helped turn NY-9, you can be sure that he will not receive monolithic support from this group, especially based on Holt's fondness for the Jew-haters on J-Street.  Holt is a dedicated tax-and-spender in one of the most heavily taxed districts in the nation, and his liberal social policies are quickly falling out of favor as well as the voters in NJ-12 age, and mature....

Look - Holt was challenged in 2010 by a millionaire and still held on.  Is he beatable in such a gerrymandered district?  Looks like millionairess Diane Gooch  may want to try next, and with hostility towards the Holt agenda much, much higher now than in 2012, with Wasserman-Schultz declaring, in effect, NJ-12 to be "difficult Democratic terrain", and with Gooch being even richer than 2010 challenger Scott Sipperelle...well, we'll see how localized the "NY-9 effect" actually is...

Who's Opposed To Stimulus PT II? Oh, Just About Everybody....

...remember that when the media starts off every news story with "Barack Obama was on the road tonight to promote his new jobs bill, but Republican opposition in Congress...."

Yeah.  About that:

President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.

Some are unhappy about the specific types of companies, particularly the oil industry, that would lose tax benefits....

There are also Democrats, some of them senators up for election in 2012, who oppose the bill simply for its mental connection to the stimulus bill, which laid at least part of the foundation for the Republican takeover of the House in 2010.

“I have serious questions about the level of spending that President Obama proposed,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia...

This is classic:

A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”

His voice rising to a near shriek, he added: “We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it? The president is in a box.”

That's right! The very thought of allowing American citizens to keep the money that they rightfully earn is causing Democrats to - according to the New York freakin' Times - "shriek".

Google "Pete DeFazio Tax", get over 7 million results fast!

You know, while lots of folks blame Obama for congressional losses such as yesterday's in NY-9, one wonders how much a howling moonbat like DeFazio contributes as well. Hey, would you want to empower that nutjob by giving him more yes-men?

Another Democrat who is no rush to "pass this bill"? Harry Reid:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said he will put the bill on the legislative calendar but has declined to say when. He almost certainly will push the bill — which Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass “right now!” — until after his chamber’s recess at the end of the month; Mr. Reid has set votes on disaster aid, extensions for the Federal Aviation Administration and a short-term spending plan ahead of the jobs bill.

Must be getting real hot in DC, if Reid is beginning to sweat. But the list of disaffected Democrats who will be unlikely to support Stimulus II goes on: Sens. Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Pa.), Jim Webb (D-Va.), Tom Carper (D-Del.)....

I guess they just don't love Barack Obama. Some better report these traitorous SOB's to Attack Watch...

Bush passed on investing your money in Solyndra. Obama, however, was smarter....

..and pumped over half a billion of your money into this fledgling "green" company, which has now gone bankrupt and left you on the hook for the balance.

Of course, Bush the Idiot was merely a businessman in the energy field, while Barack the Genius once taught Constitutional Law (insert reverent sigh here):

Newly uncovered emails show the White House closely monitored the Energy Department's deliberations over a $535 million government loan to Solyndra, the politically-connected solar energy firm that recently went bankrupt and is now the subject of a criminal investigation.

"This is not right. This is not good," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who chairs the House committee that is examining the loan. "It makes you sick to your stomach. This is taxpayer money."

The White House also noted to ABC News that the Bush administration was the first to consider Solyndra's application and that some executives at the company have a history of donating to Republicans. The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee made a unanimous decision not to offer a loan commitment to Solyndra.

Did the White House think pointing to the fact that the Bush administration considered - and then rejected - the same application that Obama eagerly accepted to the tune of $537 million in taxpayer cash somehow paints them in a better light?

Seems to me it just illuminates that much more clearly how cavalier, and reckless,  Barack Obama and the Democrats are with money - especially when it is someone else's money.

Any surprise that nobody wants to pay taxes any more, and are ready to take up arms at the mere mention of additional hikes?  Giving Barack Obama more money to play with is like investing with Bernie Madoff... after the Ponzi scheme came apart....

NY-9: Will Bob Turner's Win Cause A "Jewish Civil War"?

Liberal poll expert Nate Silver started spinning the Weprin loss before polls even closed:

Reality, of course, mocked him:

(translated as, “Mazel tov, Bob !")

Take a look at these results:

U.S. House - District 9 - Special General

David Weprin (Dem)
Total 27,669 46%
Brooklyn 5,914 33%
Queens 21,755 51%

Bob Turner (GOP)
Total 32,446 54%
Brooklyn: 12,163 67%
Queens 20,283 48%

Wheras in Queens - the home freakin' planet of the blue-collar, working middle class, multi-ethnic Democrat - Weprin could barely eke out a 1500 vote lead, he got destroyed in heavily Jewish Brooklyn..

Let's assume the message gets through to the White House (the elections of McDonnell, Christie, and Scott Brown did not) that Obama is losing the Jews, based on his treatment of Israel (and to a lesser but still significant extent, gay marriage).  What does he do?

Option 1:  He reverses course on Israel, and becomes a strong supporter of the Jewish state.  Years of mistreatment can be characterized as merely "tough love" and "even-handedness"; Obama can spin an about-face here as simply being fed up with Palestinian terrorism and Arab violence.  He can save his own ass this way, as well as a number of vulnerable Congressional Democrats.  Ah, who am I kidding?  It's about his own hide, and no one else's...

Option 2: Vengeance against the Jews.  The only thing Obama knows and loves more than kowtowing to a supportive special interest group is wreaking revenge against those whom he feels slighted him.  Whether it is repeated attempts to snub FOX News, giving Hillary the middle finger, or walking out on foreign leaders (ahem!), this guy loves a good grudge.  Obama might feel it best to send a signal to American Jews via some threats towards Israel, or support towards their enemies.  Just a little warning on what might happen down the road if the Jews don't fall into line.  An internal pogrom is unlikely, but you can bet he'll turn his back on any overt antisemitism he sees, much like he smirks and pretends not to see what the labor unions are up to...

Next, a quick joke:
Q:  What do you call the congregation of a Reform Synagogue?
A:  Goyim

Possibility #3:  A war between the Jews, which would suit Obama just fine.  Brooklyn's Jews are conservative and orthodox in nature; and the scriptures say nothing favorable towards the destruction of Israel or the wedding of male with male.  In fact, I believe they say the opposite.  And that hurt Weprin  - soldier of Obama and backer of gay marraige - a lot.  So the question is, will the "Reform Jews" lead a charge against their more conservative brethren?  Oh, you betcha.  Reform Jews oft are more wedded to the Democratic party than to Judaism, and more beholden to liberal orthodoxy than to the Bible.  They will lash out at Conservative and Orthodox Jews, trying to paint them as extremist radicals within the faith, and not to be taken as seriously as...Reform Jews. They will call them hidebound, racist, ignorant, and Israel-firsters - you know, everything that liberals say about conservatives on a daily basis...

Reform Jews have a lot of visibility and donate tons of money to Democratic candidates, Orthodox Jews are more hidden and less wealthy, but a whisper from an aged rabbi will send his reverent flocks stampeding to the voting booth en masse to pull one carefully selected lever....

With Turner's win over Weprin, a huge dynamic has been thrown into flux.  Whichever side it stabilizes behind might be the winner of the 2012 elections (think Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio).  Depends on where Barack Obama goes from here, I suppose.  Assuming the Jews don't destroy themselves first...


UPDATE:  No surprise, loony  DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz fires the first shot at her fellow Jews with a wink and a nod as she dismisses the results from NY-9:

“In this district, there is a large number of people who went to the polls tonight who didn’t support the president to begin with and don’t support Democrats — and it’s nothing more than that,” she said in a telephone interview.


You see, it's a certain type of Jew that's the problem...

NY-09: There's Nate Silver, and there's reality...

Deep from his underground prognistication headquaters, pollster Nate Silver begins to make excuses:

But from within Bob Turner's election night party, well....reality reigns supreme:

And somewhere,a damp-palmed Democrat whispers: "Note to self:  Campaign with an Israeli flag around me at all times..."

NY-9: "Tea Party Turner" getting a hell of a lot of support from...Democrats

Yeah, I was in the car for about ten minutes this morning, and I heard about five ads by Democrat David Weprin using the "Tea Party" moniker for Bob Turner.  Sounded desperate to me, actually, but I don't know how it played in Sheepshead Bay or in Breezy.  Being that I spent part of my childhood there, and still have friends and family there, I can tell you one thing:  They ain't stupid.

The New York Times does some man-in-the-street exit polling, and it all seems to be going in one direction. Call it a right turn in Brooklyn:

Indeed, the overriding question on Tuesday was how many voters would turnout for the special election – and how many them would be frustrated with Mr. Obama and choose to vote for Mr. Turner as a result.

On Mr. Turner’s home turf, at least, several voters appeared to fall into that category. “I crossed over,” said Bill Schwick, 69, a registered Democrat who was drinking a cup of coffee at the Breezy Point Cooperative Activity Center, across the street from St. Thomas More Church where he had earlier voted for Mr. Turner.

“We’re all hopeful that a candidate will be responsive to our needs,” Mr. Schwick said. “I think he’s got some good stuff, some good ideas going.”

Asked if there was any chance she had voted for Mr. Weprin, Pat Lind, 60, also of Breezy Point, said, “Absolutely none.”

“We need a change,” said Ms. Lind, a registered Democrat. It’s just too much. I’ve had it with the Democrats.”

They may be proud Democrats, but they are not blind Democrats.

A coda, of sorts:

The Weprin campaign deployed what it called an “army” of more than 1,000 volunteers around the district, and Mr. Weprin planned a busy day of campaigning -- though he could not vote, because he lives outside the district in Holliswood, Queens.

Finally, we re-introduce a tragicomic minor character, shuffling off-stage to a few hoots scattered between the mass indifference:

Boy, in that special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District, Democrat David Weprin just can’t catch a break. Now Anthony Weiner is admitting he voted for him.


In a report, it says that Weiner “showed up alone, wearing jeans and a blazer.” It’s bad when news reports need to emphasize you were wearing pants...

If you don't think this version of the Star Spangled Banner is the best ever....

...well, you can just go to hell. And take your soft-singing falsettos with you.

The fans at Soldier Field were so moved by Cornelison's heartfelt rendition of our nation's anthem that they were cheering him on throughout the song. So powerful was Cornelison's singing that you may start cheering, or even tearing up, regardless of where you are when you watch this clip.

Yo - I clipped the above from the HuffPo, for chrissakes....

Check it out:  Jim Cornelison brings it:.  Around the one minute mark:

Beautiful: George W. Bush Flight 93 Memorial Speech At Shanksville, PA

This is how a president gives a speech. It is dignified, it is heartbreaking  - but uplifting as well -  and it contains a unique, solemn beauty. A speech like this - selfless, full of love not for oneself, but for one's countrymen and nation - has never been given by Barack Obama.

He is simply incapable of it.

George W. Bush's speech at Shanksville, Pennsylvania - the final resting place of the heroes of United Flight #93 - given on the eve of the tenth anniversary of 9/11:




GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Mr. Vice President, Dr. Biden, President Clinton, Mr. Speaker, members of Congress, my friends Tommy Franks and Tom Ridge, thank you for helping raise the money for this memorial. Members of the National Park Service and the National Park Foundation, all of those who supported this memorial, but most importantly, the families of Flight 93. Laura and I are honored to join you in dedicating this memorial to the heroes of Flight 93.

When the sun rose in the Pennsylvania sky ten years ago tomorrow, it was a peaceful September morning. By the time it set nearly 3,000 people were gone. The most lives lost on American soil in a single day since the battle of Antietam.

With the distance of a decade, 9/11 can feel like a part of a different era. But for the families of the men and women stolen, some of whom join us today, that day will never feel like history. The memory of that morning is fresh and so is the pain. America shares your grief. We pray for your comfort and we honor your loved ones.

September 11th, 2001, innocent men and women went to work at the World Trade Center. They reported for duty at the Pentagon. They boarded American Flights 11 and 77, United 93 and 175. They did nothing to provoke or deserve the deliberate act of murder that al Qaeda carried out.

One of the lessons of 9/11 is that evil is real, and so is courage. When the planes struck the World Trade Center, firefighters and police officers charged up the stairs into the flames. As the towers neared collapse, they continued the rescue efforts.

Ultimately, more than 400 police officers and firefighters gave their lives. Among them was the chief of the New York City Fire Department Peter Gancy. As a colleague put it, he would never ask anyone to do something he didn't do himself.

The Pentagon service members and civilians pulled friends and strangers from burning rubble. One special forces soldier recalls reaching through a cloud of smoke in search of the wounded. As he entered one room, he prayed to find someone alive. He discovered a severely burned woman and carried her to safety. Later, in the hospital, where she explained she's been praying for rescue. She called him her guardian angel.

And then there's the extraordinary story we commemorate here. Aboard United Airlines Flight 93 were college students from California, an iron worker from New Jersey, veterans of the Korean War and World War II, citizens of Germany and Japan, a pilot who had rearranged his schedule so that he could take his wife on a vacation to celebrate their anniversary.

When the passengers and crew realized the plane had been hijacked, they reported the news calmly. When they learned that the terrorists had crashed other planes into targets on the ground, they accepted greater responsibilities. In the back of the cabin, the passengers gathered to devise a strategy.

At the moment America's democracy was under attack, our citizens defied their captors by holding a vote. The choice they made would cost them their lives, and they knew it. Many passengers called their loved ones to say good-bye, then

Many passengers called their loved ones to say goodbye then hung up to perform their final act. One said, "They're getting ready to break into the cockpit. I have to go. I love you." Another said, "It's up to us. I think we can do it."

In one of the most stirring accounts, Todd Beamer, a father of two with a pregnant wife with a home in New Jersey, asked the air operator to join him in reciting the Lord's Prayer. Then he helped lead the charge with the words "Let's roll."

With their selfless act, the men and women who stormed the cockpit lived out the words, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." And with their brave decision, they launched the first counter offensive of the war on terror. The most likely target of the hijacked plane was the United States Capitol. We'll never know how many innocent people might have been lost, but we do know this, Americans are alive today because the passengers and crew of Flight 93 chose to act, and our nation will be forever grateful.

The 40 souls who perished on the plane left a great deal behind. They left spouses and children and grandchildren who miss them dearly. They left successful businesses and promising careers and a lifetime of dreams they will never have the chance to fulfill. They left something else -- a legacy of bravery and selflessness that will always inspire America.

For generations people will study the flight, the story of Flight 93. They will learn that individual choices make a difference, that love and sacrifice can triumph over evil and hate, and that what happened above this Pennsylvania field ranks among the most courageous acts in American history.

At the memorial we dedicate today will ensure our nation always remembers those lost here on 9/11. But we have a duty beyond memory. We have a duty beyond honoring. We have a duty to live our lives in a way that upholds the ideals for which the men and women gave their lives, to build a living memorial to their courage and sacrifice. We have a duty to find common purpose as a nation.

In the days after 9/11, the response came like a single hand over a single heart. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle gathered on the steps of the capitol to sing "God bless America." neighbors reached out to neighbors of all backgrounds and beliefs.

The past decade, our country has been tested by natural disaster, economic turmoil, anxieties and challenges here at home and abroad. There have been spirited debates along the way. It's the essence of democracy. But Americans have never been defined by our disagreements. Whatever challenges we face today and in the future, we must never lose faith in our ability to meet them together. We must never allow our differences to harden into divisions.

Secondly, we have a duty to remain engaged in the world as 9/11 proved that the conditions in the country on the other side of the world can have an impact on our own streets. It may be tempting to think it doesn't matter what happens to a villager in Afghanistan or a child in Africa, but the temptation of isolation is deadly wrong.

World repression, anger and resentment will be a never ending source of violence and threats. A world of dignity and liberty and hope will be safer and better for all. The surest way to move toward that vision is for the United States of America to lead the cause of freedom.

Finally, we each have a duty to serve a cause larger than ourselves. The passengers aboard Flight 93 set an example that inspires us all. Many have followed their path of service by donating blood or mentoring a child or volunteering in desperate corners of the earth. Some have devoted their careers to analyzing intelligence or protecting our borders and securing our skies. Others have made the noble choice to defend our nation in battle.

For 10 years, our troops have risked and given their lives to prevent our enemies from attacking America again. They've kept us safe, they have made us proud, and they have upheld the spirit of service shown by the passengers on Flight 93.

Many years ago, in 1863, another president came to dedicate a memorial site in this state. He told his audience that, "In a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. For the brave souls who struggled there, it consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract."

He added "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here."

So it is with Flight 93. For as long as this memorial stands, we will remember what the men and women aboard the plane did here. We'll pay tribute to the courage they showed, the sacrifice they made, and the lives they spared. The United States will never forget.

May God bless you all.


May God bless and keep you, George W. Bush...

If Paul Krugman didn't exist, we'd have to invent him

Well, maybe not.  If you created the character within a novel that is Paul Krugman - a radical liberal, a failed economist, a former adviser to Enron (whose financial collapse destroyed thousands of lives), a man whose every fiscal forecast has been spectacularly off-base, and yet has won a Nobel prize, enjoys a prized perch in a major daily newspaper, and is adored by the left for his anti-Americanism - the editor would throw the manuscript back at you, and wearily inform you that your villains need to be more realistic in order for people to either relate to them, or feel threatened by them.

And yet, human ugliness always seems to cross the boundaries which we set within our minds as uncross-able.  Certainly, one of the words used most frequently after 9/11 was "inconceivable", as we could not fathom the mindset behind a massive attack aimed at killing as many middle-class working stiffs as possible.  And certainly, one might use the same word to describe this blog post yesterday issued by Paul Krugman on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks:

The Years of Shame


Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

The horror of these words -  by an American, no less, by a New Yorker - stands on their own. But Pejman Yousefzadeh does a nice job nevertheless:

...collective sadness, this ability to feel the sadness of others, and to give expression to our sympathy, our empathy, and our grief makes us humans. And Paul Krugman’s inability to perceive it, his willingness – either due to moral myopia, or to an eager desire to give himself to the cause of repulsive propagandizing – to characterize our “subdued” state to the supposed “shame” that the country allegedly feels for not thinking exactly as Paul Krugman has thought for the past ten years makes him the archetypal brute.

"Brute", in this case, is just the right word for Krugman, and all of his liberal ilk. Defined:

- of or relating to beasts
- characteristic of an animal in quality, action, or instinct: as cruel, savage (brute violence)
- not working by reason
- unrelievedly harsh

In one simple swoop, Krugman transcends the boundaries from "every day villainry" to "comic-book super-evil villianry". Inconceivable, yet, like the painful memorials we saw yesterday, all too real...


UPDATE:  Jen Rubin unloads as only she can on Krugman and his enabler, the New York Times:

One cannot begin to imagine what motivates such hatred and contempt for his countrymen, especially on a day when the overriding theme was unity. The president and former presidents spoke without partisanship or rancor. Not Krugman, though. But there is cowardice, too — he deactivated his reader comments on that spasm for “obvious reasons.”

I suppose we should cease to be shocked or appalled....But it does say something about the deification of the Times, practiced by the editor and so many of her ilk. Their paper is a false god — sneering, obtuse and contemptuous — not a font of truth and wisdom.

One thing you can say for Krugman: The jewel of the liberal media is revealed to be an intellectual black hole and a spiritual wasteland. No wonder it is a dying enterprise. Its countrymen have better things to do than be insulted by the likes of Krugman.

Falling Down

{reprinted from a post originally written here on September 11th,2005}

This photo, for me, is the most haunting visual from September 11th. This man went to work that beautiful Tuesday morning, perhaps kissed his wife and children goodbye, and soon was faced with a choice presented to him by Islamic terrorists: To die by fire, or to die by falling.

What went through his mind as he pondered his options? Was there ever the hope he could survive the 100-odd story fall? Or was this the American version of the ancient Israelites' Masada, where they fell on their swords rather than be taken by the Roman enemy? Did he chose to take his own life in a defiant plunge rather than burn in his enemy's fire?

We'll never know, and it doesn't really matter anyway. What matters is that in his death, Falling Man did something meaningful, something great. He shows us, in the starkest terms, the choices being offered to us by the Islamic enemy. Peace and friendship are not present in this photograph, nor is the possibility of future existence. The only choice being offered by the Muslim Terrorist is the method by which our lives are to be ended to serve their dream of an Islamist globe.

I look at this photo and wonder how many Americans will be faced with this man's choice in the future. After 9/11, we said Never Again and Never Forget, but with the help of the liberals and their lackeys in the media the horror of that day is being sanitized, equivalized, and minimized. Will it soon be taught that Falling Man's death was, in actuality, his own fault?

We must fight. Now. In the Middle East and wherever the terrorist calls his turf, lest he return to our soil to perpetrate his hatred again. We must ignore the sweet siren call of the Left, calling for acquiescence and appeasement with those whom want our blood. Let us turn away from the weakness of "understanding" our enemies; for I do not want the poisonous ideology of those whom caused my friend to jump to ever enter my soul.

There is right and wrong. There is good and evil. Those whom refuse to define it do not know the difference, and their morality (or lack of it) will eventually kill them.

I will define it; I will call a thing what it is, political correctness be damned. I was there; an eyewitness; I watched the buildings fall and heard the people scream; I saw more funerals at a young age then I ever imagined possible. The cry of the bagpipes echos in my head, and forever chills my heart.

Falling Man, again. He made a moral choice that turned into a symbol for September 11th. In the face of our enemy, we are all faced with a similar choice. Fight with whatever we have, or be consumed in his flames. Not happy choices, but neither were his. We cannot chose the times we are given to live in, we can only chose what we do with that time.

Let us chose wisely, then. On a day that we mourn the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans, it is incumbent upon us to Never Forget, and to do all in our power to make sure this never happens again. Lest our generation be cursed by those that follow.

May God bless and keep the souls of those whom perished on this fateful day.  And may our actions never bring shame to their memory...

PBS Covers Up Obama's Shame

Yet another gaffe of historical proportions. The New York Times provides us with a key portion of the transcript of Obama's Thursday night campaign rally, which he forced upon a joint session of Congress:

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future -- a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad -- (applause) -- launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.

Of course, anyone with access to Wikipedia would know that the Republican Party was formed in 1854, and Lincoln joined them in 1856.  Is Obama (and/or his speechwriters) so lazy and dumb that they cannot even get their basic facts about the Great Emancipator straight?  Or were they so desperate to accuse Republicans of smearing the memory of one of America's most beloved presidents that they thought they could slip some historical falsehoods in without anyone noticing?

If they thought the latter, they almost pulled it off.  The media, so eager to jump on even the slightest misstatement of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and George W. Bush as proof of their stupidity (and hence buttress the perception of a super-intelligent liberal elite), did not seem to notice this momentous gaffe at all.  And PBS - taking it a step further -actually changed the transcript of the president's speech in order to remove his ignorance from the record.  As it appears on their website:

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future - a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.

Notice something missing?

(screenshot here, should PBS ever feel any shame about willfully producing government propaganda)

The next time someone asks you why you believe PBS should be defunded, tell them it's for their own good.  If they weren't so dependent on taxpayer largess, they wouldn't be forced to lie to cover up the government's mistakes.  Or, to put it more crudely, a crack whore won't have to suck dealer d*ck anymore if she gets off the pipe...

And the next time someone asks you why you think Barack Obama is a dumb as a stump, just tell them this:

Barack Obama actually does not think very deeply, does not retain information very well or for very long, and cannot form the ideas he does believe into coherent, grammatically-correct sentences. For a fourth point, consider that he hardly ever shows any real curiosity or passion about much and has not shown any ability to process new information or change his mind about anything, and you have ample evidence that Barack Obama is quite average, and possibly below average.


UPDATE: Tom Maguire seems pretty sure this was strictly an Obama error, and urges us not to blame either the speechwriters or the teleprompter...

Barack Obama: The Child In The Room

Well, maybe not the child.  Think more of a teenager, a college sophomore, perhaps, who has just gotten his first credit card, and wants to buy, buy, buy, with no concern about the debt he or she is piling up.  Sure, they'll be minimal payments now of $50-$60 dollars a month, and that'll put a crimp in my beer money, but I can manage that.  It's worth it for all the cool stuff I could never afford which I can get right now!  Oh, I'll pay off the balance eventually - when I'm making just a bit more money....

So Obama rolls out his new liberal wish list last night, and the bill is going to come to somewhere between $400-$450 billion dollars.  Call it a neat half-trillion.  And he claimed that everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything..

How?  He didn't say, becuase he doesn't know.  Instead, he demanded that Congress’ bipartisan "supercommittee" - you know, the one which was created in the debt-ceiling deal, that is already tasked with identifying at least $1.2 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving - come up with $1.7 trillion in cuts in order to cover his plan. See?  No longer his responsibility!  He'll spend the money, and he'll pass the bill off to mom and dad, and blame them when his credit score goes into the crapper.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) on Baby Baracky passing the buck to his committee:

This proposal would make the already-arduous challenge of finding bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction nearly impossible, removing our options for deficit reduction for a plan that won’t reduce the deficit by one penny. It’s not the role of this committee to spend more money we don’t have on jobs we don’t get.

Finally. Someone has to be the adult in the room, and I'm glad Rep. Jeb took the time to explain to Barack that the nation's credit card can't take on another half-trillion in debt.

Will  Obama comprehend this simple exercise in home economics? Or will he pout, whine, kick and scream that Republicans suck because they won't get him whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and they're just stupid, cheap, selfish meanies?

Well, at last night's speech to Congress Obama proved once and for all that he is the child in the room.  So expect a tantrum any minute now.  Wait - here come the balled fists....I WANT IT NOW! NOW! NOW!