“You Lie!” Congressman Joe Wilson: I’ve Been Proven Correct

See the video at the following link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/17/you_lie_congressman_i_was_right.html

Remember in 2009 the Congressman who yelled “you lie” at President Obama during an address to both Houses of Congress?

Obama claimed that his health care reform plan (now called Obamacare) would not allocate money for illegal immigrants.

According to Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), the Congressman who yelled out at Obama, nearly $8.5 million has been set aside for “seasonal farm workers.” Wilson says this group is made up of at least 25% illegal immigrants according to the Pew Research Center.

Now the Congressman says he was right. “It is clearly providing money that should be going to American citizens to illegal immigrants,” Rep. Wilson told FOX News today.

MSNBC’s Chris Mathews is a Dirty Liar

This is how far the left has gone folks. Once again they have resorted to just making stuff up out of thin air. Mathews claimed on his show that Rush Limbaugh said that we should reverse the reintegration of the military that happened at the end of WWII. Mathews is lying in the worst form of smear. It is no different when MSNBC made up the false quotes about Limbaugh when he was trying to buy an NFL team.

Audio and transcripts of every Rush Limbaugh show are posted online every day.

Keep in mind it was Democrats led by Woodrow Wilson that re-segregated the military after Republicans had integrated it. The NAACP before it was hijacked by the neo-marxist left, was a solidly Republican organization that formed largely in response to Wilson who was also known as “the first progressive president”.

This is indicative of what we will see in the upcoming campaign.

Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: Taxes on ‘Small Business’ Must Rise So Government Doesn’t ‘Shrink’

Wow, Geithner is spinning hard. 3% of businesses. Most businesses are on paper or are 1-2 man operations. Small businesses used to do almost 80% of the hiring in this country, now it is only 64%. The tax he wants will affect most businesses who actually hire. That is the point he is so desperate to avoid. Congressman Ellmers almost put him away and the following two questions in red text would be the key followups that would have finished him, “Mr. Geithner, how much of that 3% of small businesses you want to tax actually employ five or more people?”

At the same time the Obama Administration is fine with his friends at Google paying 2.4% on $3.1 billion in profits. General Electric, which was ran by Obama’s friend GE CEO Jeffery Immelt who just took a job at the White House, paid no tax on $14.2 billion in income and actually got government subsidies. GE also owned MSNBC until just recently, but I am sure that is just another one of those funny coincidences.

Geithner talks about the top 2%, but what he didn’t tell you is that the way the tax code works that top 2% excludes much of the very wealthy [see this link for details why]; who such a tax smacks are the genuine wealth creators , upper middle class risk takers and small businesses. A husband and wife with two kids may own and operate three local pizza shops and on paper that small business will bring in $250,000 a year in income (notice I did not say profits, I said income), but most of that money will go to paying employees, buying the pizza delivery man’s gasoline, food, energy for the ovens and freezers, boxes, cleaning supplies, wages, other taxes etc. Everyone must get paid before the owners do and they will be lucky to scrape $50K for themselves, which in turn they will be paying more taxes on.

Then comes the right hook, “Mr. Geithner, how can one be against small businesses that actually hire (pause for effect) and for jobs at the same time?”

I just talked to Addison Scott, who is on Congressman Ellmers’ staff, and I passed those two questions on to them. I can’t wait to see her lay these two questions on Geithner and watch him squirm.

CNS News:

Geithner’s explanation of the administration’s small-business tax plan came in an exchange with first-term Rep. Renee Ellmers (R.-N.C.). Ellmers, a nurse, decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 after she became active in the grass-roots opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposed health-care reform plan in 2009.

“Overwhelmingly, the businesses back home and across the country continue to tell us that regulation, lack of access to capital, taxation, fear of taxation, and just the overwhelming uncertainties that our businesses face is keeping them from hiring,” Ellmers told Geithner. “They just simply cannot.”

She then challenged Geithner on the administration’s tax plan.

“Looking into the future, you are supporting the idea of taxation, increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 or more. Those are our business owners,” said Ellmers.

Geithner initially responded by saying that the administration’s planned tax increase would hit “three percent of your small businesses.”

Ellmers then said: “Sixty-four percent of jobs that are created in this country are for small business.”

Geithner conceded the point, but then suggested the administration’s planned tax increase on small businesses would be “good for growth.”

 

Good for the growth of government perhaps, not the economy.

Washington Post Glenn Kessler: President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout

Note: This did not appear in the printed edition of the Washington Post, not does it appear on the paper’s main site. It is on their blog site. They can say that they reported it while making sure that most average people never see this story.

Washington Post Politics Blog:

 

“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency.”

— President Obama, June 4, 2011

This post has been updated.

With some of the economic indicators looking a bit dicey, President Obama traveled to Ohio last week to tout what the administration considers a good-news story: the rescue of the domestic automobile industry. In fact, he also made it the subject of his weekly radio address.

We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case.

What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.

Let’s look at the claims in the order in which the president said them.

“Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency — and it repaid that money six years ahead of schedule.  And this week, we reached a deal to sell our remaining stake. That means soon, Chrysler will be 100 percent in private hands.”Wow, “every dime and more” sounds like such a bargain. Not only did Chrysler pay back the loan, with interest — but the company paid back even more than they owed. Isn’t America great or what?

Not so fast. The president snuck in the weasel words “during my presidency” in his statement. What does that mean?

According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office. However, Obama was not a disinterested observer at the time. According to The Washington Post article on the Bush loan, the incoming president called Bush’s action a “necessary step . . . to help avoid a collapse of our auto industry that would have had devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.”

Under the administration’s math, the U.S. government will receive $11.2 billion back from Chrysler, far more than the $8.5 billion Obama extended.

Through this sleight-of-hand accounting, the White House can conveniently ignore Bush’s loan, but even the Treasury Department admits that U.S. taxpayers will not recoup about $1.3 billion of the entire $12.5 billion investment when all is said and done.

The White House justifies not counting the Bush money because, it says, that money was completely spent when Obama was making a tough political decision on whether to extend another loan. In other words, a decision to do nothing at the time would have resulted in the immediate loss of the $4 billion that Bush had extended.

This is chicanery. Under the president’s math, Chrysler paid back 100 percent of Obama’s loan and less than 70 percent of Bush’s loan. A more honest presentation would combine the two figures to say U.S. taxpayers got back 90 percent of what they invested. In fact, that is how the Treasury and other administration officials frequently portray it; it is just when Obama speaks that the numbers get so squishy.

The White House justifies saying that Chrysler will be in 100 percent “in private hands” because there will no longer be government ownership once Fiat completes its purchase of the U.S. stake. For the record, the United Auto Workers will own 46 percent of the company.

“All three American automakers are now adding shifts and creating jobs at the strongest rate since the 1990s.”The White House says the data to back this claim concerning the Big Three automakers is not public information. The official Bureau of Labor Statistics data refers to the entire auto industry — including foreign auto manufacturers, auto parts manufacturers, auto parts dealers and auto dealers. If you look at the data, the 113,200 jobs added between June 2009 and May 2011 amounts to about a 5 percent increase — from a rather low base.

UPDATE, 10:45 AM: Yen Chen, automotive business statistical analyst at the Center for Automotive Research, says CAR’s analysis of Big Three auto data shows this statistic is correct. The Detroit Three are expected to add 10,000 hourly and 5,000 salaried workers this year, from a base of 115,805 hourly workers and 56, 432 salaried workers. That’s an increase of about eight percent in each case. More than 16,000 hourly workers were added in 1991, but from a much higher base–440,000– and 10,000 were also added in 1995, when there were 433,000 hourly workers. Meanwhile, salaried workers have been on a steady decline since 1990 (when the big Three employed 157,000).

“GM plans to hire back all of the workers they had to lay off during the recession.”This is another impressive-sounding but misleading figure. In the five years since 2006, General Motors announced that it would reduce its workforce by nearly 68,000 hourly and salary workers, creating a much smaller company. Those are the figures that generated the headlines.

Obama is only talking about a sliver of workers — the 9,600 workers who were laid off in the fourth quarter of 2008. About 4,100 were sent home for a few weeks. Another 5,500 were put on indefinite leave, meaning there were no jobs at the time for them. All but 1,000 havereturned to work, and the rest should be back at work by year’s end, according to GM spokesman Greg A. Martin.

“In the year before I was President, this industry lost more than 400,000 jobs, and two great American companies, Chrysler and GM, stood on the brink of collapse. Now, we had a few options.  We could have done what a lot of folks in Washington thought we should do — nothing.”This is quite a straw man — that many people wanted to do nothing. It was never so black and white. The debate was over the right course to take in the bankruptcy process.

The Wall Street Journal published Monday an interesting conservative critique of the government’s intervention by David Skeel, a law professor at University of Pennsylvania. Skeel says that the revival of the auto industry “is a very encouraging development,” but “to claim that the car companies would have collapsed if the government hadn’t intervened in the way it did, and to suggest that the intervention came at very little cost, is a dangerous misreading of our recent history.”

To support the claim that “a lot of folks” wanted to do nothing, the White House referred us to statements by the House minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

We do not read Boehner’s quote that way; in this 2009 comment, he is questioning the administration’s approach while saying, “The success of our automotive industry is critical.”Shelby and Kyl in 2008 were protesting the use of taxpayer funds by Bush to delay a bankruptcy filing; they preferred immediately putting the companies through the bankruptcy process.

It will be up to historians to decide what the best solution would have been for taxpayers and the auto industry. We can understand why the president wants to portray himself as making a lonely and tough decision. But the debate was not either/or, bur rather what was the best policy to bring the automakers back to financial health.

 

Dr. Victor Davis Hanson: A Kingdom of Lies

This is a must read from one of the greatest minds in the country today. Much of what we are told to believe are litle more than a pack of lies.

Dr. Hanson:

I am a subject in a kingdom of lies. At 57, I have grown up with decades of untruth — advanced for the purposes of purported social unity, the noble aim of egalitarianism, and the advancement of a cognitive elite in government, journalism, the arts, and the universities.

Alger Hiss really was a communist operative, albeit an elegant and snooty sort of one. The Rosenbergs were tag-team spies. Noble Laureate Rigoberta Menchu did not really write her own memoir. I admire the lives of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, even as I sensed there were large areas of their biographies that simply could not be disclosed and that the censorship was apparently for our own good. I know that if I did what Eliot Spitzer did I would not be hosting a TV show.

I did not quite know how “witch hunt” characterized the often disreputable tactics of Joe McCarthy — cruel and obnoxious were the better adjectives. You see, there were really communists in Hollywood at a time of a dangerous global cold war against communism, in a way there were never any witches at all in Salem.

But then for some reason I sensed that a murderous, camouflaged Fidel Castro killed more innocents than a murderous, gold-braided Augusto Pinochet. I accepted that we were to be silent about the former’s crimes since his ends were said to be good, while the latter’s crimes were for the bad — though economists of no particular political affiliations have shown that Chileans escaped poverty and dictatorship while Cubans were, and are still, plagued by both.

As far as Hollywood, goes, as I have said, I do not go to the cinema at all. The choices are meager. We can watch a George Clooney, Matt Damon, or Ben Affleck — multimillionaires all of mediocre talent — uncover some corporate or CIA conspiracy that threatens the environment (their employers and distributors are not corporate?), the non-white male, or global peace — or sit through yuppie crises whose double entendres and cute repartees are known mostly only to metrosexuals between New York and D.C., or from Malibu to Newport Beach. We are told they are films, but those too are lies; they are mere transcripts of the daily psychodramas of a privileged and bored class whose efforts are spent searching for global causes that might balance — as penance if you will — their own often angst-driven quests for influence, notoriety, and the material good life.

The media is our ministry of truth of the Oceania brand: one day Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventive detention, Predators, the Patriot Act, and Iraq were bad; then one day in January 2009 I woke up and heard of them not all. I then recognized that they were now either good or at least necessary — or perhaps sinister IEDs of a sort left behind by the nefarious Emmanuel Goldstein administration, now too dangerous to even touch.

The Goldstone Report, I thought when I first scanned it, was worse than most undergraduate research papers I have graded — and therefore I expected it to be praised by the international community. And it was until even the author, like the rare guilty undergraduate who confesses to plagiarism, wants his signature off the report. But then long ago I got used to Israel being damned by reporters, NGOs, and the UN and EU types as apartheidists, racists, imperialists, and Nazis in direct proportion to the fact that visitors to the Middle East usually prefer to go Israeli cafes, hotels, and hospitals. Reporting on the West Bank is a 10 AM-2 PM day job, with a commute back across the green line. Half a million Jews ethnically cleansed in the 1960s from Baghdad, Cairo, and Damascus were opportunists; half a million who fled to the West Bank twenty years earlier are still recently arrived refugees. But then I don’t know why Jerusalem is a divided city and Nicosia is not; or why the Kuril Islands or East Prussia are not similarly said to be “occupied”; or why the fence in Israel is worse than the fence in Saudi Arabia.

I have no idea whether invading in preemptive fashion an oil-producing, Arab Muslim country without congressional approval is an impeachable or humanitarian act — or both. You see, it depends, in the manner that Trotsky’s photo used to, and then did not used to, appear in the snapshots of the Soviet pantheon. I suppose the same is true about prisoner abuse. I remember traveling in Europe and seeing those eerie black Klan-like hoods and capes with all sort of French, Italian and German sloganeering about the atrocious sexual humiliation that took place at Abu Ghraib, but I imagine this summer there won’t be much about supposed transgressions in Afghanistan where civilians were supposed to have been executed rather than humiliated. Things just happen, I suppose, in wars after 2009 — like now in Libya too.

I also have a sense, although it has never been quite so ordered by the Ministry, that a nut burning a bible is either artistic expression or a proper antidote to centuries of repression and so to be either applauded or ignored; but a nut burning a Koran evokes decapitations and murder and does so quite understandably — although I am never told quite why. Does it involve liberal paternalism and condescension: millions of Muslim radicals are captives of emotion and ignorant and thus not “like us,”so we must create much different standards for “them” that we don’t apply to others? We as adults laugh when symbols of Christianity are defaced in thousands of incidents; they as children naturally and understandably kill when one Koran is burned by one silly wannabe minister? Or is the Ministry’s fear that when Christ is satirized in a cartoon, no bomb shows up at the editorial office; when Mohammed is so caricatured, two do — and that because reporters are said always to be brave and publishers principled we cannot just admit to that?

I think I also understand that the support for 11 million illegal aliens arriving here from Mexico without English, legality, or education is not fueled by tribal and ethnic chauvinism. I know that to suggest that extending immigration consideration to a new cadre of 11 million Koreans, Chinese, Africans, and Europeans with graduate degrees and capital would be racist to the core. The former group from Oaxaca is diverse, the latter from almost everywhere illiberal. I have seen those demonstrating for amnesty deprecate the U.S and its flag while championing Mexico, and I think I am supposed to understand that screaming at the country you wish to stay in, while singing praises for the country you do not makes perfect non-sense, in Humpty-Dumpty word fashion. And I know I am not supposed to say that, much less explain why millions flee here from a temperate and fertile south and not from an Arctic north.

I know that UC Berkeley is worried about diversity since blacks and Latinos are underrepresented (as are whites) while Asians are vastly “overrepresented.” And I think I understand how such proportional representation will eventually be achieved by various ministries, and all contrary to state law: the underrepresented whites will be assumed to be overrepresented, the Asians will be quietly and insidiously pruned back by considering “community service” in preference to grades and test scores, and far more African-Americans and Latinos will be admitted by rejecting unfair criteria such as meaningless grades and test scores — and that all this — not science or the humane arts — will be mostly the business of the architects of undergraduate education. The alternatives? They are too ghastly to contemplate. Just let things alone, and the underrepresented communities will decide on their own why they are not going to college in sufficient numbers, and take self-help measures to the degree they see it as a problem — or shrug and admit that the ministries are using archaic neo-Confederate racial criteria in a mixed-up, intermarried world where one needs a genealogist to plot one’s precise racial ancestry.

I think I have it right that conservative Republican white guys are selfish and greedy, and therefore a liberal Bill Gates or George Soros made their billions by enlightened, or green, or socially useful methods. Did BP and Goldman Sachs really favor Barack Obama? Will they again? Were Freddie and Fannie really looted by Clintonites? Did GE pay no taxes? Is there still a revolving door in Washington where a Robert Gibbs, of no discernible talent, or a Peter Orszag, who nearly wrecked the economy with massive deficit spending, are now poised to become progressive multimillionaires?

Is making millions from Facebook, or GM, or GE now fine in a way it is not from the Koch Brothers? Again, these are just the thoughts of someone trying to read between the lines of the Oceania censors. (So we are to think the Tea Partiers are the greedy reactionary and wealthy, and the millionaire donors targeted by the Obama reelection committee merely generous?)

I don’t know what “investments” and “stimulus” mean. Do any of you? I think they refer to borrowing over $500 billion for a particular green or mass transit project. But then I don’t know what “green” means either, and for that matter don’t know what is the difference between “global warming” and “climate change” — other than earthquakes and tsunamis sometimes count under the latter, as do cyclones and hail storms. I do know that when I go to the Sierra tomorrow to shovel 15 feet of March snow off a porch I am supposed to assume these last two record winters of heavy snowfall had something to do with climate change. After all, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu warned that 90% of the Sierra snow pack will one day disappear and my farm, like all the others, will blow away — and that apparently somehow, some way, sometimes too much snow is just part of that drying out process.

As far as ‘kinetic” and “man-caused disasters” and “overseas contingency operations,” I think they have something do with killing terrorists. I also assume those who do fight the bad guys do not employ such euphemisms, which are for our, not their, consumption. We, the administered to, live in a “downright mean” country; our administers go to Costa del Sol in summer and Vail in winter on the mean country’s dime.

In this kingdom of lies, this Oceania of the mind, I, a subject of the monarchy of untruth, navigate carefully, assuming what I read and see is simply not true — and cannot be said to be untrue. Last week at the Post Office, a rather well-dressed young man in line was explaining to me that he was wondering why his unemployment check had not come to his PO Box. And then he further offered that he is now negotiating, or rather hoping, for his unemployment to be extended beyond his second year. I smiled and said, “That’s wonderful, because I know you are not working off the books for cash, and I know you are looking for a job all day long, and I know that if your benefits ever end, you will not suddenly find work.”

The odd thing was that he laughed and thought those were lies too.

Elite Media and Democrats Using Japan Crisis and Lies to Advocate More Deficit Spending

The Media Research Center exposes the lies.

 

AOL News Op-Ed: Elite Media Whitewashing Wisconsin’s Protests

AOL News:

For the past two weeks, the news media have been swarming over Madison, Wis., covering every detail of the public-sector union protests against Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed budget cuts, as well as other similar protests around the country.

If you’ve followed the mainstream press, you’ve seen lots of civil protests, lots of interviews with reasonable teachers, pictures of signs about the need for quality education.

But have they been giving viewers and readers the whole story? Not quite.

Here’s a sampling of what you likely missed:

Uncivil language

• During the protests, there have been signs comparing Gov. Walker to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mubarak, even Satan. Some signs featured Walker’s face in crosshairs with the words “Don’t Retreat, Reload: Repeal Walker.” Another held a sign saying “Political Death to Tyrants.”Click here to see a gallery of signs(caution, several signs contain adult language).

• On Feb. 22 in Boston, Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., fired up a union crowd in front of the statehouse: “I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an e-mail to get you going. Every once [in] a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”

• In Rhode Island, a union supporter called a cameraman a derogatory term for a homosexual and threatened to have anal sex with him.

• In Ohio, a union activist called tea party members “corporate butt-lickers” and Nazis.

Violence

• Tabitha Hale of FreedomWorks was filming a union protest outside their offices in the nation’s capital Feb. 23 and was shoved to the ground by a middle-aged male activist wearing a T-shirt of the Communications Workers of America.

• Fox News correspondent Mike Tobin said he was hit by pro-union protesters in Wisconsin amidst cries of “Fox News lies” from the crowd, which also tried to block the cameraman’s view of Tobin.

Not one of those outrages was apparently worthy of much in the way of news coverage.

For example, a Media Research Center study of 53 Wisconsin stories on ABC, CBS and NBC found that only eight stories visually featured signs comparing Gov. Walker to Hitler, or Mussolini, or Stalin, or Mubarak, or Satan. More incredibly, not a single network anchor or reporter addressed whether that kind of signage was civil or appropriate. And only Fox covered Capuano’s “get a little bloody” remark.

Now, compare this to how tea party protests have been covered, and you can see a glaring double standard at work.

These same media outlets spent two years obsessing over every over-the-top tea party sign and mere accusation of uncivil behavior.

Do you remember the claims that tea party activists intentionally spit on Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (a charge he backed away from) and that tea partyers yelled the N-word at black congressmen (which no one could produce on video)? The mere accusation, the mere suggestion was enough for blanket network coverage.

Do you recall the endless parade of anti-tea-party stories after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson? All of them uniformly denounced Sarah Palin as if she encouraged the shooting. Palin put crosshairs on a congressional district, on the Internet. The Wisconsin protesters put Walker’s head in the crosshairs on posters. But Palin was the evil one, and the Wisconsin protesters got a free pass: No one denounced them.

Well, one uncivil action did break through the media blackout — when blogger Ian Murphy of the “Buffalo Beast” made a crank call to Gov. Walker pretending to be billionaire conservative philanthropist David Koch. But he was celebrated by the press.

On “The Early Show,” CBS reporter Dean Reynolds talked about how gullible the governor was. NBC News correspondent Michael Isikoff asserted that Murphy proved the union conspiracy theorists were right. CNN named Murphy “The Most Intriguing Person of the Day.”

None of these networks, it’s worth pointing out, mentioned that Murphy’s article on this prank call was titled “Koch Whore,” or that he’d in the past written such things as “If Rove is Bush’s brain, may the 43rd president be lobotomized before we string him up.”

Why would they, since that apparently wouldn’t fit the media’s preferred narrative that the pro-union protesters are, unlike tea partyers, champions of civility?

L. Brent Bozell III is president of the Media Research Center.

White House: Stimulus Goals Have Been Met …

Denial?

Watch the video at Real Clear Politics. – LINK.

Is there any regard for reality in D.C. ?

So Much for Social Justice: AOL buys Huffington Post for $315 million. Shares nothing with writers/contributors.

Florida School Board Shooter Self Proclaimed Humanist, Railed Against Rich, Touted Far Left Smear Site Media Matters

Once again lone wolf violence inspired by the hate rhetoric of envy from Media Matters and the far left blogs. Prof. Amy Bishop shot up her university, the man who flew his plane into the IRS building, the Pentagon shooter, the Discovery Channel shooter, the SEIU thugs who beat up Kenneth Gladney and the list goes on.

According to Clay Duke’s Facebook page, which has now been taken down, Duke proclaimed his religion as Humanist and his politics, well you will see that below. If Duke had listed anything like Tea Party or Evangelical or favorited Glenn Beck the reaction from the elite media would have been nothing short of orgasmic. Of course the last 200 years are filled with violence from secular leftists such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Ortega, etc.

Via The Blaze:

Clay Duke, the man who opened fire on a Florida school board Tuesday, posted a “last testament” on Facebook decrying the wealthy and linking to a slew of progressive sites including theprogressivemind.info and MediaMatters.org.

The chilling Facebook statement, posted under the “About Clay” section, talks about being born poor and how the rich “take turns fleecing us”:

My Testament: Some people (the government sponsored media) will say I was evil, a monster (V)… no… I was just born poor in a country where the Wealthy manipulate, use, abuse, and economically enslave 95% of the population. Rich Republicans, Rich Democrats… same-same… rich… they take turns fleecing us… our few dollars… pyramiding the wealth for themselves. The 95%… the us, in US of A, are the neo slaves of the Global South. Our Masters, the Wealthy, do, as they like to us…

In addition to the note, Duke also includes a reference to class warfare:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class that’s making war and we’re winning”
– Warren Buffet

And then issues a call to rise up, which seems to be from a poem titled “The Mask of Anarchy”:

Rise like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number.
Shake your chains to earth like dew.
Which in sleep has fallen on you.
Ye are many – they are few.

Besides the writings, Duke also includes an exhaustive list of links under the quote “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” The page includes a link dedicated to Wikileaks, another to a progressive 9/11 truther site, and even Media Matters.

Far left radio talker Mike Malloy lied saying that the shooter was a Glenn Beck follower.

Beck responded saying that you knew the guy was a liberal because he didn’t know how to shoot.

MSNBC Talker Calls Sarah Palin an “ASS”…

…and manages to get the only “factoid” she presented totally wrong. Video via The Blaze.

This is one reason why so few on the left are willing to go on Fox News or enter a setting where they will actually have to debate informed people.

You will notice in the video that random MSNBC talker, who is really no different than most MSNBC talkers, states that when Sarah Palin was asked who her favorite Founder was that she could not name one. This is a lie that many of the far left web sites have embraced such as Media Matters, News Hounds, The Young Turks, Huffintgon Post and the list goes on. They post the video and leave off her answer so it looks like she could not name one. Others just posted a long video of the interview while claiming she was “stumped” and simply counted on people not hanging around to watch her complete answer.

This is the level of dishonesty that the far left engages in regularly as of late. It reminds me of the whopping lies Joe Donnelly said about Jackie Walorski over the recent election. Certainly MSNBC has the video below, yet they seem happy with the lie. Fortunately MSNBC is such a small operation that they are not an electoral threat to anyone.

The video below shows the entire clip and it clearly shows that Sarah Palin answered “George Washington” complete with an explanation as to why.

I am not surprised that Palin would pick Washington, as most people of strong Christian faith do pick him because Washington’s faith was so strong that his men and many of his enemies believed that he could not be harmed in battle (read the history folks as this is mentioned by many at the time).

I watched the interview where Sarah Palin was asked this question live and even though I am much more familiar with the Founders than the vast majority of Americans, I had trouble answering. The thought of trying to decide who was “better” between Patrick Henry, George Washington, Ben Rush, Sam Adams, Noah Webster and the rest actually left me in horror for a few moments. I know full well that the Founders were truly great men with a special blessing, they are men that I am not qualified to judge. At the first moment the idea of ME picking one Founder over another left me feeling unworthy, among these great men who am I to chose who is best? To me it is like declaring who is better Moses or John the Baptist. Indeed it is the hope of enlightened students to be able to approach the wisdom of Founders who even played a lesser role. Sarah Palin was not resistant to answer this question not because she did not know something about them, rather it is precisely because she does, which her answer clearly demonstrates.

Eventually I settled on Sam Adams as a “favorite”. I did so because the way he carried out his passion and the way he spoke was the closest to me so I feel like I identify with him.

New York Times Calls Glenn Beck an Antisemite: Ignores Key facts, Ignores Letter from ADL Declaring Beck “A Friend of the Jewish People”

Why anyone believes a word that appears in the New York Times without triple checking it first is beyond me. Almost every day there are articles in that paper that can be debunked in minutes of fact checking. Example # 1, 374, 924 of this fundemental truth. The New York Times prints this:

Writing on The Daily Beast, the author Michelle Goldberg said Mr. Beck’s Tuesday and Wednesday programs were a “symphony of anti-Semitic dog whistles.”

The NYT also said that the ADL was criticizing Beck for reporting how George Soros admitted that he enjoyed working for the Nazi’s confiscating property of Jews and (as the narrative goes) how it just could not be true…. Oh really….. hey NYT… YouTube is a Behar isn’t it??

In Soros’ own words folks: 

Well guess what the New York Times had in their possession BEFORE they printed the slander against Glenn Beck?

Click to Enlarge

Special thanks to The Blaze for posting the letter.  

 

UPDATE – Another Jewish Group Defends Beck!

The national Jewish group Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has come out strongly against Jewish leaders critical of Glenn Beck’s recent George Soros expose, which detailed his actions during the Holocaust, calling such criticism of Beck “painful, troubling and disquieting.”

“ZOA has expressed its concern over the strong criticism that a number of American Jewish leaders and other prominent Jews in recent days have directed at Fox broadcaster, Glenn Beck, for his criticism of Israel/U.S.-basher, financier George Soros, regarding his behavior in Nazi-occupied Budapest in 1944,” the group says in a statement released Tuesday.

In a three-part series on Beck’s Fox program last week, Beck portrayed Soros as the “puppet master” behind, among other things, world financial collapses. While describing Soros, Beck told how, during the Holocaust, the 14-year-old Hungarian Jew “used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off.” The “anti-Semite” was Soros’s fake grandfather, who was paid off by his real father in an effort to conceal the young Soros’s Jewish identity. He has not shown remorse or regret for those actions.

“A number of American Jewish leaders condemned Mr. Beck for these remarks,” ZOA’s statement says, “yet a 1998 interview with Soros conducted by Steve Kroft on ‘60 Minutes’ shows that Beck did not misstate the facts.”

The group goes on to detail a litany of “anti-Israel, anti-American” remarks made by Soros over the years.*

Among those who have spoken out against Beck are Elan Steinberg, the vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants; Simon Greer, the director of Jewish Funds for Justice; Jewish writer Michelle Goldberg; and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.

“I have seen no proof,” Steinberg has said regarding Beck’s Soros claims, while Greer said Beck “deliberately and grotesquely” mischaracterized Soros’s actions and accused him of “Holocaust revisionism.” Goldberg wrote that Beck’s series went “beyond demonizing” Soros and described the programs as a “symphony of anti-Semitic dog whistles.” And Foxman issued a statement calling Beck’s claims “unacceptable,“ ”offensive,“ and ”horrific.”

Statements like those prompted ZOA to respond.

“It is painful, troubling and disquieting to see Jewish leaders defending any actions by George Soros, someone who has shown himself to be an active antagonist of Israel and the U.S., whom he blames for the world’s troubles,” ZOA National President Morton A. Klein says in the statement.

“In light of Soros’ hatred of Israel and the United States; his continuous efforts to harm them; the absence of any subsequent remorse and feeling as an adult over the events he witnesses in Nazi-occupied Hungary as a 14-year old; as well as the fact that Glenn Beck’s comments were essentially accurate, George Soros merits no defense or sympathy from Jewish leaders,” he adds.

“We are truly puzzled that some Jewish leaders have chosen to defend this and other Israel-bashers from their critics.”

General McInerney: It was a missile

General McInerney is correct that aircraft do not leave a fat con trail at low altitude.

Many times this very writer has witnessed F-15’s, F16, F-111’s do vertical climbs many times while in the military.  I have also worked with and around those fighter aircraft as well as the T-38, the T-37 and the big tankers.  I have training in AGE equipment, aircraft armament systems and airborne munitions. I graduated at the top of my class in every military tech school I attended.

It took me a while to finally see a real copy of the video and not just the snippets that have appeared on TV and in my experienced, and educated opinion General McInerney is very likely to be spot on. The plum being so thick at the lower altitudes indicates solid rocket fuel or a liquid rocket propellant. Jets use a very different type of engine that just doesn’t behave like that.  The object is likely going away and to the right of the camera at about a 48 degree angle. It appears to have less speed since it is traveling out to sea to the northwest away from the camera.

The course correction at altitude is also indicative. This was a keen and experienced observation from the general. A missile makes a course correction at a programmed altitude when its guidance system takes over from the launch sequence.  A plane in the kind of optical illusion would not have had a change in course in the way that we saw. For a plane to do that it would have had to have decided to break from its straight line course and follow the edge of a small half circle and then come out with a slight course correction. A plane out to sea would be flying in a straight line at an altitude that no one else was, so no course correction of that kind of maneuver would have been necessary. If it was a plane doing that kind of course correction an Air Traffic Controller would have had to have ordered it and it would have been recorded.

I have seen high altitude con trails a thousands times. At that altitude one would not see the flash from a rocket engine at the tip of the con trail if it were a jet. This indicates that it started at lower altitude. Even with afterburners on in the case of a fighter jet, jet engine exhaust flash is not nearly as bright as that of a rocket as you can see in this video here (the music in the video is irritating so feel free to mute it):

If it was a plane what plane was it, tracking the flight path of something so big isn’t difficult, yet they cannot tell us. They tell us that they are sure it is not a missile but cannot explain how they came to that determination, and they will not confirm what it is. No parent would tolerate such evasiveness from a child so why should we from the government?

Here are some missile launches for comparison.

ICBM Peacekeeper launch

Trident I C-4 Launch

This is the actual footage. When the camera zooms in you can see the missile and you can see the bright light rocket fuel plume burning quite clearly. 

This is a genuine aircraft con trail in the same sky from another night for comparison and as you can see it is quite different. Notice that this is a measured slow and long course change; nothing like a missile doing a course correction when the guidance system takes over from the launch sequence. 

Now compare this with a SECOND video of the missile launch from 10 miles farther away

I shot this from Mission Viejom, CA (which is about 10 miles from the pacific ocean as the crow flies) Really had no idea what it was until I read about it…

hounddog1011 11/13/2010

Last but not least, those who believe it was a con trail show some other photo’s with a similar effect but there are two problems with their photos: the first is that in order to get a con trail to start to look like that it needs to be exposed to the wind for some time to generate the effect, and even so the visual differences are there. In the missile picture we see that effect happening as the missile goes upward in pretty much real time.

Howard Kurtz Blasts ABC for Dumping Andrew Breitbart from Election Coverage Because of “Newsroom Uprising” – UPDATED: Breitbart Responds

UPDATE – ABC lied when the pressure was put on. This is a very educational and interesting interview.

Andrew Breitbart is a nice guy and he doesn’t deserve this at all.

 

Friends, if you want evidence that newsrooms are mostly filled with like-minded elitist leftists, this fact doesn’t get illustrated much better than this story.

Kurtz was right to stand up for Brietbart, but is a also wrong about the so called “misleading video” comment. This is what happens when people believe the elite media narrative without checking the facts – more on that below.

Andrew Brietbart is a one man media empire. He is also a conservative activist.  He has straight news web sites, commentary news web sites, blogs, a video news clips service, Hollywood connections and influence, D.C. connections and influence etc.. If you read the news regularly online you can be sure you have read news from Brietbart web sites.

Andrew Brietbart is the employer of the investigative journalists that brought ACORN and their illegal activities in tax fraud, vote registration fraud and other illegal activities burning to the ground. ACORN was a huge power player among leftist circles and wow is the left upset.

Brietbart is despised by the left. He is media public enemy number three among the left after Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Andrew Brietbart  wrote a blog post about a Youtube video of showing Shirley Sherrod at a 2010 NAACP event where she had talked about how she used her position to plot against a white farmer because he was white and she perceived a “superior attitude” from him.  The story whipped up a big firestorm in the elite media.  The elite media ran with the story, as they got excited when they saw “racism” and they aired snippets of the clip where Sherrod tells about the racist plotting.  The media trimmed video clips down for time which is not unusual. The inflammatory nature of the story they thought they had was just too juicy to go back and check carefully. The administration fired Sherrod for “racism”. Most of the people that viewed the clips they saw on TV took it at face value and demanded her head (including Rush Limbaugh if memory serves).

The administration fired Sherrod for “racism”. Most of the people that viewed the snippet they saw on TV took it at face value and demanded her head (including Rush Limbaugh if memory serves). Sherrod said that when she was fired over the phone that they told her that Glenn Beck was going to blast her as a racist on his show the following day.  Even though Beck got the story right the first time, the left started blaming him.. at first….

Glenn Beck did something the elite media did not expect. Beck spoke up against the firing of Shirley Sherrod and indicated that the story might not be as it appears in the elite media. After the entire “Glenn Beck and the Tea Party is racist” canard from the elite media you can understand why they were shocked. The question is WHY was Beck right about this story so early on? Keep that question in mind as we will return to it in a moment.

A few days later the NAACP released the 43 minute tape of the event. The tape showed that later in her speech Sherrod talked about how this event with the white farmer helped her to realize that racism is wrong and how it helped her in her journey to overcome racism. It turns out that Sherrod is not quite the racist as the elite media television narrative had made people think. The media and the administration realized they had egg on their face and the finger-pointing began.

Then the elite media en mass said that Brietbart carefully edited the tape to set Sherrod up and that they were tricked. This is the lie that the elite media and the left still puts out today…… BUT…

…it turns out that the elite media didn’t listen to the entire Youtube clip very carefully. It turns out that Brietbart did not chop it up to make Sherrod look guilty, in fact the Youtube video Brietbart linked to and blogged about includes  a part of her mea-culpa. Brietbart was not even the creator of the Youtube video.

This is why Glenn Beck got the story correct the first time. Beck never believes the elite media narrative on face value and prefers to check the facts out for himself. Beck and/or his staff ignored the clips that the TV was playing and instead went to Brietbart’s web site to examine the entire Youtube video carefully. It was at that time Beck had realized the obvious, that Sherrod was starting to explain how she realized her racism was wrong.

The elite media and far left web sites like HuffPost, Daily KOS, Young Turks, Media Matters etc are still lying about this and claiming that Brietbart edited the video to set Sherrod up.

Here is part I of the the video Brietbart blogged about. Sherrod starts talking about how she plotted against the white farmer at 20 seconds and the NAACP audience is shown obviously approving of what she was plotting with nods, “that’s right’s” and approving laughter through the 55 second mark; as you can see scorn and condemnation of a racist act is no where near anyone in the audiences demeanor. At 1:25 in the video she starts talking about how she began to realize that her racism was wrong.  – 

Brietbart did not say in his blog post about the video that Sherrod should be fired as that was not even the point of his post, rather Brietbart made his point clearly. When Sherrod told how she plotted against a white farmer the NAACP audience laughed and nodded approvingly at her for that discrimination before Sherrod made her the mea-culpa and talked about how this event helped her to realize that racism is wrong. What Brietbart saw and blogged about at the NAACP event was exactly what the elite media falsely accused the Tea Party of, the applauding and/or tolerating racism in their ranks. [The NAACP also pressured the Obama administration to drop the case against members of the Black Panthers who showed up to polling places armed to intimidate white voters into not voting – Editor].

Just how bad is the elite media corruption on this issue?

Among the elite media culture, the first to get this story correct was Chris Mathews of MSNBC …but let us hold off our praise for just a moment till you see what comes next. The video below is the 5PM broadcast of Hardball with Chris Mathews. This is a sight to see:

Notice Mathews says that he saw the original Brietbart internet post and insists that the video linked to includes the part with Sherrod’s mea-culpa. Howard Dean tried to make the case that it wasn’t, accuses Mathews of being like Fox News for sticking to the truth, and then relents and admits that he did not go to Brietbart’s web site and view the original video, but rather all he saw was what appeared on TV. Howard Dean says that the entire clip is not what he saw on Fox…. guess what Howard, according to all of the blogs, comments, posted clips, and searches I can find,  Fox never aired the clip until AFTER Sherrod was fired. Nice try.

But come 7PM the video was yanked from MSNBC’s web site and when the 7PM version of Hardball aired the part of Mathews getting the story correct was gone. BigGovernment.com has both clips side by side for your inspection. They also asked politico.com for a correction:

At the very end of one of the video excerpt’s, Ms. Sherrod begins to explain how she later realized her initial discrimination of the white farmer was wrong. In Andrew’s article about the speech he noted

Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.

If we were trying to show that Ms. Sherrod was “boasting” of discrimination and were prone to editing the tape as evidence, wouldn’t we have cut that part out?

Politico would not correct the record or respond, which is becoming habitual for them.

Back to ABC. In a way I am glad Brietbart was not on ABC for several reasons. Brietbart is a brilliant guy and the media empire he has built makes that self-evident, but Brietbart is one of those guys who gets nervous and a bit choked up when in front of a camera with hostiles. There are some people who do not speak well in front of an audience no matter how smart they are. I know Andrew has been working to improve on this but he still needs improvement. I also do not trust ABC for many good reasons that we have documented over the years on this very web site. I believe that it would have been a three or four on one gang up on Brietbart for much of the evening if he were to appear.

More Donnelly Dirty Tricks

Check out this flier the Democrats sent out to Republican voters:

Mark Vogel is the Libertarian Party candidate.

Of course this is no surprise as Joe Donnelly has ran a campaign of Lies. I do not say that lightly. Left leaning watchdog groups like factcheck.org and even the Associated Press blasted Donnelly’s campaign ads as just plain false.

More Lies from Desperate Democrats: Joe Donnelly Lies About Jackie Walorski Again – UPDATE: Associated Press Blasts Donnelly for Social Security Lie!

FactCheck.org Blasts Donnelley’s False Claims

Time-Yahoo News Blast Obama & Donnelly

DNC Chair: Donnelly Running Away From Who He Is

Donnelly Tries to Fool South Bend Tribune – Indicates He Might Not Vote for Pelosi as Speaker UPDATED!

Video: Who did that? Donnelly did…

 

 

Media Matters Lies About Vote Fraud Reporting – Obama Justice Department Talks Tough While Encouraging Fraud

This is a part of our new last minute “Dirty Tricks” category.

Picking on Media Matters is pretty easy as much of the nonsense that they post can be debunked in minutes utilizing a couple of internet searches. Since George Soros gave this bunch a million dollars to smear people I thought it would be fun to go and pick part one of their posts just as a reminder.

So I started reading and laughing at how transparent the lies they post have become. Behold this latest example:

John Fund and Jedediah Bila baselessly suggest Obama wants felons and illegal immigrants to vote rather than soldiers [on Hannity].

Baselessly? Well apparently Media Matters missed it when the  media and think tanks wrote and broadcast about this, but they also missed it when Obama’s own Justice Department commented on the issue!

The Justice Department is not enforcing the MOVE Act and as a result some states decided not to mail out ballots to military members overseas in time for the election. Yet Felons had their ballots hand delivered to them in the jails.

MOVE is the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) act. Nine states failed to get this done while the Dept. of Justice yawns. The military is being disenfranchised from the election. This is an old tactic used by Democrats as Al Gore’s lawyers convinced a Democrat appointed federal judge to agree to toss out all military ballots in Florida in 2001.

Fox News:

Military voters from the land of Lincoln could be shut out of the midterm election after the Justice Department reached an agreement with Illinois that gave the state “a pass” for violating federal election law, an advocacy group warned Monday.

The Justice Department hammered out the court agreement Friday addressing the failure of 35 Illinois counties to send military and overseas absentee ballots 45 days before the election — a requirement of the MOVE Act. The agreement gave voters from six of those counties a few extra days to send back their ballots but did not specifically address the other 29 counties.

Eric Eversole, a former Justice voting section attorney who runs the nonprofit Military Voter Protection Project, told FoxNews.com the deal effectively lets wayward Illinois election officials off the hook and does little to ensure the state’s military voters get their ballots in time.

Investors Business Daily:

The Justice Department, which has been woefully lax in enforcing MOVE and ensuring compliance among a number of states that have missed their deadlines, reached an agreement in court last Friday with 35 Illinois counties that didn’t get their ballots out on time. Six counties got an extension by two or three days to receive and count overseas ballots by Nov. 16.

The other 29 counties essentially got a pass. Justice spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said these counties already have 14 extra days after the election to count soldiers’ ballots. But if any votes aren’t counted in a timely manner, she said, “we can file a lawsuit.” This is not how soldiers who may get killed not knowing if their votes counted should be treated.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Board of Elections hand-delivers ballots to inmates in Cook County Jail. The board doesn’t even wait for the inmates to apply — it brings the applications with the ballots! More than 2,600 inmates have cast ballots — strikingly similar to the 2,600 soldiers who will likely not receive a ballot for Tuesday’s election.

You see Media Matters that is the Justice Department commenting on the story… But wait there’s MORE!

The Washington Times:

Holder Puts Felons Over Soldiers

The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus.

Mr. Cornyn co-authored a 2009 law mandating that states mail absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before the election. Yet, as former Justice Department lawyer Eric Eversole first reported in The Washington Times last week, the department seems to be encouraging states to apply for waivers so they won’t have to follow that law. More than 17,000 Americans serving overseas were denied the vote in 2008 – but, presumably because military personnel are thought to lean conservative, the liberal Obama administration is in no hurry to correct the situation.

The Justice Department is so unenthusiastic about military voting that its website still lists the old requirement for a shorter 30-day military voting window, rather than the current law mandating 45 days. On the other hand, the Justice Department has no legislative mandate whatsoever to involve itself with helping felons to vote, but its website devotes a large section – 2,314 words – to advising felons how to regain voting privileges.

As confirmed by The Washington Times last week, Justice Department official Rebecca Wertz told a Feb. 1 conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State that the new law’s requirements are somehow open to interpretation. On July 28, an attendee at that conference – heretofore uninterviewed – told The Washington Times that Ms. Wertz’s message was “totally undermining” the law. The earlier reports actually underplayed the effect of Ms. Wertz’s comments. “It was even more pronounced at the meeting,” said the source. “She undermined [the law] right in front of everybody. When I heard what she was saying, I thought: ‘You’ve got to be kidding!’ … It was a clear reversal of roles for Justice to no longer be enforcing the law.”

After looking at the minutes of that conference, Mr. Cornyn responded forcefully. His office confirmed that he did place the hold on Mr. Cole because of the military voting issue. His July 26 letter to Mr. Holder does not actually mention his hold, but its tone was strong stuff.

“The statute does not create any discretion for the Executive Branch to decide whether or not to enforce its legal requirements,” the senator wrote. Ms. Wertz’s comments “fly in the face of the clear statutory language, undermine the provisions in question and jeopardize the voting rights of our men and women in uniform.”

The senator laid out a series of four steps he wants Mr. Holder to take to ensure that states respect the 45-day deadline, including a demand that the Justice Department provide a state-by-state accounting of compliance efforts. The hold on Mr. Cole, reportedly a personal friend of Mr. Holder, is sure to grab the attorney general’s attention. Our troops deserve his respect.

Oh look Media Matters the Justice Department commented on the story again!

The Washington Times did a second editorial on this story HERE.

Starting on October 27th (how is that for late in the game) after seeing some local news outlets and the elite media start to pick up on the story the Justice Department held a press conference announcing that they will get tough with states that do not get ballots out in time (of course this is the opposite message they were on record as having before).

CNN:

Justice Dept. pushes states on new law to protect military voters

The ballots of U.S. military personnel abroad — even those in remote war zones — must be received and counted before the November election results are declared final, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights chief asserted Wednesday.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez told reporters his voting rights attorneys have repeatedly gone to court in recent weeks to force states to abide by the 2009 law designed to get ballots to soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen in time.

The new law, called the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, requires states to transmit absentee ballots to service members, their families and other overseas citizens at least 45 days before a federal election.

The military ballots were supposed to be out at least 45 days ago but in the last few weeks the Justice Department leaps into action! Ohhh sound so tough right? Ok now read this very carefully:

Four states and one territory were compelled by courts to comply with the law. Wisconsin, New York, New Mexico, Illinois and Guam were ordered to provide ballots, and in most cases required to provide extra days to receive and count the ballots.

Most of the voters (43,000) are from New York. The court order requires New York to wait until November 24 to receive and count absentee ballots to ensure the military votes are tallied.

New York gets an extension to November 24th to count ALL absentee ballots … hello let the ballot stuffing begin. New York is has  highly contested Governor, House and Senate races. It is no secret that New York has issues with absentee ballot fraud – LINKS –  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

But in Illinois when the GOP asked for a similar extension for military ballots only what was the Justice Department position:

However, in Illinois the Republican Party went to court to argue that in some cases it may be necessary for military personnel to cast ballots after Election Day. The Justice Department objected, insisting post-election voting has never been allowed. A federal judge Wednesday denied the GOP request.

So the Justice Department makes deals that allow some areas extra time to mail out the ballots – some deal since they are still no good if they come back late in most states – In New York the Justice Department is all for an extension as long as ALL absentee ballots can be counted late (let the stuffing begin!) – and in Illinois well no, even though military ballots are sent out late the Justice Department says opposes letting them count if they can’t get back in time.

Yup real tough.

And another lie from Media Matters destroyed in mere minutes. It’s so easy. Felons pushed to vote, military screwed, Obama Justice Department helping it along.

Ralated:

The Heritage Foundation also wrote about the issue HERE asking “Why is Obama Letting Non-Citizens Get Away with Voting?”

Early Voting Vote Fraud Roundup!

CBS News Reporters On Tape Conspiring to Manufacture a Scandal Against Republican Senate Candidate – Elite Media Nearly Mum…

This is a part of our new last minute “Dirty Tricks” category.

This is not the first time the “make it up media” has been caught red handed conspiring to manufacture smears against Republicans to change an election.

CBS News reporters were caught on voice-mail via a phone, that was thought to be shut off, conspiring to invent a scandal by claiming a campaign volunteer is a child molester or manufacturing a violent encounter.

Transcript:

FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you’re the expert, but that’s what I would do. … I’d wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something.
[Laughter]

[INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters…

MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah. … Can you repeat Joe Miller’s, uh, list of people, campaign workers, which one’s the molester?

[INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.

[Laughter]

MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person.

[INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is, we won’t know, we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’

FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul. I like that. That’s a good one.

Sarah Palin reacts on Fox News Sunday early Sunday morning.  –

The rest of the elite media is not reporting the story with any justice; a Google search late Sunday night for this story shows only a handful of media outlets reporting the story and most of them are local Fox affiliates. This story has been out since Saturday night and below is screen shot of the Alaska Daily News senate race coverage (notice the links section has no mention of the story) late Sunday Night (10:30 PM Eastern complete with Lisa Murkowski Ad). The ADN had an article on their web site late Sunday but it was not promoted not was it in their Senate Race link list till Monday.   This is not a surprise considering that ADN was “investigating” the bogus “Trig is not Sarah’s baby” allegation MONTHS after the story was debunked.

Click to Enlarge

Below is the reaction from The Washington Post, which was to claim that the media is “Pro-Palin Corrupt” and that Palin gets too much coverage for her popularity and why… because she isn’t in the top few most followed people on Twitter… amazing. Of course Sarah Palin is THE most followed/Liked person on Facebook (and Facebook is way more popular than twitter), but reporting that does not fit the narrative that the Washington Post wished to present. This piece is so outrageous and laughable that I fear that the Post will scrub it so I took a screen shot:

Click to Enlarge

Far Left MoveOn.org nut who was “stepped on” by a Rand Paul supporter tried to get at the candidate and reached into his vehicle…

Of course the “elite media” didn’t want to tell you about that or show you that part of the video.

Now we know that this nut was trying to get her hands on the candidate so the crowd and security rushed in to deal with her. The entire story from the Moveon.org nut is a fabrication. The video doesn’t lie.

Extreme?

Newsweek misquotes the Constitution while trashing those who believe we should follow it.

Newsweek is a joke, has been for a long time, and they prove it almost every week. Reporting on or correcting the nonsense in that magazine is so easy and has been done so many times that it is no longer news or novelty for blog sites and watchdog groups. With that said, at times elite media journalists display such profoundly bold levels of  ignorance that it provides some amusement for thinking people.

In Newsweek’s October 17, 2010 issue is an article titled “Tea Party evangelists claim the Constitution as their sacred text. Why that’s wrong“. It has all of the predictable misinformation that is commonplace among the progressive secular left claiming that the Constitution is a rabidly secular document and people who actually want to follow it shouldn’t be taken seriously anyways. In fact that go so far as to state the following:

The Constitution is a relentlessly secular document that never once mentions God or Jesus

Guess who has never read a Constitution….

So here we go to knock this one out of the park. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

“The Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven” is a direct reference to Jesus Christ. They just didn’t say “we did it in 1787” the Founders went out of their way to say that it was the year of OUR Lord and so strongly believed that the birth of America was an act of Divine Providence that they dared to draw the moral connection from the birth of Jesus to the birth of the United States when they said in the same sentence “and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth”. To run those two events as together as they did shows the Founders belief that the sacrifice of His Son and the birth of the United States are two great holy acts worthy of being side by side in the same sentence. The Founders were master word-smiths and chose their words very carefully as their writings show us again and again.

So lets talk about those “rabidly secular Founders” for a moment shall we? Dr. John Eidsmoe, Professor of Constitutional Law:

In a study that appeared in the American Political Science Review back in 1984, two political science professors, Dr. Donald Lutz and Dr. Charles Heineman researched 15,000 writings, letters, diaries, sermons and other works that were written by various leading Americans from 176O-1805. Their purpose was to identify quotations to find out who the founding fathers were quoting’ where they got their ideas, what authorities they were most impressed with. They found that by far the most widely quoted source in the founding fathers’ writings was the Bible. Thirty-four percent of all quotations came out of the Bible. And the book of the Bible they quoted most often was the book of Deuteronomy. Now most of us don’t go around quoting Deuteronomy a great deal today, but Deuteronomy is the book of the law. And they were writing about law and government.

The Founders did give us a guide as to how they expected the Constitution to be interpreted and understood. James Madison, Jon Jay, and Alexander Hamilton wrote “The Federalist Papers”, a series of essays on each facet of the Constitution and the law; an instruction manual to the Constitution.  It explains now just how it should be interpreted but the reasoning and legal philosophy behind the Constitution itself. It should be pointed out that public schools do not teach The Federalist Papers and even political science students at universities only glance over a few of the topics discussed in it. make no mistake that this is no accident. If the Federalist Papers were taught as a proper civics course in public schools it would result electoral losses for Democrats in coming years. What better way to destroy or get around the Constitution than to make people forget it?

Federalist Paper author Jon Jay was the first Supreme Court Justice. He was the founder of the American Bible Society.

Federalist Paper author and signer of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton founded a group called the Christian Constitutional Society. Of course those who know history understand that the group was short lived due to Hamilton’s untimely death.

Federalist Paper author and signer of the Constitution James Madison was a seminary student.  Madison is referred to as “The Father of the Constitution” as most of the ideas for its form came from him. Madison studied Hebrew so he could learn to increase his understanding of Biblical Law.

So do you still think our foundation of law is “rabidly secular”? Let us examine the Federalist Papers essays themselves. Federalist numbers 1,2, 5, 10, 18, 19, 31, 51, 57 and 69 have references to God, Christianity or Religion. The Founders made speeches and wrote thousands of letters to each other explaining the divine nature of our system of law and America’s founding. [Editor’s Note – the Federalist Papers is very difficult to understand due to the differences in the language and the state of education. An easy to read translation of The Federalist Papers by Mary E. Webster is a great resource for those new to constitutional law studies.]

One example is George Washington’s First Inaugural Address, perhaps Newsweek would be so arrogant and foolish to claim that George Washington just didn’t understand the Constitution:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.

Clearly it was Washington’s view [As was the view of almost very one of the Founders] that the Constitution itself is Divinely inspired. What you see here is just one reference of several in Washington’s Address. I encourage everyone to go and read the entire speech.

Washington reaffirmed this view in the Thanksgiving Proclamation as ordered by Congress:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. – President George Washington, New York, 3 October 1789

Of course one cannot leave this subject without the mention of the Deceleration of Independence which …well it speaks for itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE’S GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[Editor’s Note – notice that the violations committed by the King that are listed in the Deceleration of Independence are deemed a violation of God’s Law. I encourage all of you to read the violations listed as they discuss a right to a jury trial, free commerce, rights of travel, rights of due process etc; indeed the same rights that are enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Newsweek and progressive secular leftists would have you believe that the rights which are considered God’s Law by the Founders in the Deceleration were somehow magically transformed into being “rabidly Secular” by the same group of people just a short time later at the signing of the Constitution.]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed –. . .

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our SACRED Honor.

Is there any doubt that the so-called journalists and editors at Newsweek are pinheads? They could not even quote the Constitution of the United States properly and it would have taken them only 10 seconds to punch the text of it up on the internet. The Deceleration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, the thousands of letters and speeches by The Founders are all at their finger tips. As are the minutes of the debates the Founders logged while these documents were created. Are the people at Newsweek merely pinheads or are they liars? You will have to decide that for yourself. One thing is clear, their subscriber base has rendered its decision as Newsweek’s circulation dropped 52% from 2007-2009 alone.

 

Benjamin Franklin, To Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention

All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?

 

Rabidly secular my ear…

UCLA Study: Signs at Tea Party Not Racist

Wait you mean that the Democrats and the elite media lied? Of course the elite media is mostly mum on this story and I am surprised that the Washington Post carried it on their web site. Of course if the study found the opposite it would lead every headline at every elite media newspaper and network.

Graduate student Emily Eakins from UCLA took pictures of signs at the 9/12 event in D.C. Going row by row every hour and photographed every sign.

The results. Described as the ugliest messages were  “Obama Bin Lyin” and “Somewhere in Kenya a Village is Missing its Idiot” which is obviously a satirical crack at Hillary Clinton’s quote “it takes a village to raise a child”; hardly controversial:

56.2 percent of signs at the 9/12 march advocated limited government or warned of declining freedom.

Ousting incumbent politicians was the theme of 28.1 percent of the signs.

26.9 percent signs expressing anger at the White House.

11.6 percent of signs directed anger at the ruling elite for betraying the public.

The new health-care law was the subject of 8.7 percent of the signs.

8.3 percent mourned the demise of the U.S. Constitution.

6.2 percent of signs were somewhat ambiguous.

Messages of cultural or religious conservatism were expressed on 5 percent of signs.

Illegal immigration was the big issue for 3.3 percent of sign-waving protesters.

1.2 percent expressed anger at the mainstream media.

“Birther” messages questioning President Obama’s citizenship accounted for 1.2 percent of signs.

Less than one percent of signs addressed generational theft.

Some Democrats are running “against” ObamaCare, but refuse to sign a pledge to repeal it.

This post is a part of our new “LIES” category.

Many Democrats like Joe Donnelley are pretending to be running against the Democratic leadership [LINKS – 1, 2, 3, 4].

Some are even pretending to oppose the ObamaCare healthcare tax bill. But if they oppose it how come they refuse to sign the pledge to vote to repeal it?

This is the game that lots of Democrats in swing districts play. They will vote for the far left agenda in as many procedural votes they can get away with, and on the final vote if there are enough votes to pass what the leadership wants, those Democrats then vote no so they can go home and tell their constituents how moderate and independent that are while not fighting legislation they are pretending to oppose.

Tim Roemer was a master at playing this game. Roemer voted against the bloated 1993 Clinton budget on the final vote,  but he voted to preserve its form in procedural votes 44 times.  Jack Colwell at the South Bend Tribune was not sharp enough  to figure out what Roemer was really up to, but any meaningful examination of his voting record made it obvious.

From http://defundit.org/

More Lies from Desperate Democrats: Joe Donnelly Lies About Jackie Walorski Again – UPDATE: Associated Press Blasts Donnelly for Social Security Lie!

This post is a part of our new “LIES” category.

UPDATE – AP:

SOCIAL SECURITY INSINCERITY: “If Walorski’s plan was in place two years ago, you could have lost nearly 40 percent of your retirement savings. Jackie Walorski. We can’t afford the risk.” That’s a Democratic ad against a Republican candidate in Indiana, misrepresenting Republican proposals to let people invest a portion of their Social Security taxes privately. GOP candidates Sean Duffy in Wisconsin, Dan Benishek in Michigan and Andy Barr in Kentucky are similarly depicted as reckless gamblers with Social Security money.

THE FACTS: The 40 percent figure bears no resemblance to Republican proposals.

It is based on the percentage drop in the 2008 stock market crash. Republicans have never proposed personal savings accounts for all Social Security money. And the current House Republican leadership has not agreed to support any private investment program.

The main Republican initiative comes from Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who would give workers under 55 the option of investing a third of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts managed by the Social Security Administration. The government would guarantee that nobody loses money.

Of course this is not the first time he either just made a claim up or totally distorted Walorski’s position – FactCheck.org Blasts Donnelley’s False Claims

The charge? Donnelly is claiming that Walorski wants to throw ALL Social Security funds into the stock market.

In a new ad and mailer from Joe Donnelly and his pals in the AFL/CIO leadership that I received in the mail today it says:

It’s clear that Jackie Walorski will risk our retirement saving. the only gamble is how much we’ll lose.

Of course this is the same lie that Democrats all across the country have been using and even the left leaning Factcheck.org says that the claim is pure nonsense. Read for yourself at the link.

Factcheck.org: Obama’s (Latest) Social Security Whopper – The president claims Republican leaders are as eager to ‘privatize’ Social Security as they are to repeal his health care law. That’s not true.

The president further distorted the Republican position when he claimed that the GOP plan would “[tie] your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders.” That’s not true of the private accounts Bush proposed. Those would have been invested in strictly regulated, broadly based mutual funds, much like the funds in which millions of federal workers invest their own retirement funds.

Obama isn’t the only one spreading this lie, Here is a member of the Democrat Leadership making the same bogus claim on CNN.

Here was IUSB Vision’s take on this lie:

The lie; Wasserman is misrepresenting Ryan’s  position on Social Security. He doesn’t want to completely privatize it at all, he proposed as a possible alternative to offer people under age 55 the option of investing a fraction of their money in personal accounts in the same way that Congress has their retirement plan run. The plan that Congress has is partially private and partially ran by the government. All investments are carefully vetted and the money is very much diversified so if 1 of 25 investments loses some the others make money. The plan Congress has for themselves is ran VERY well and is quite lucrative. Of course what Wasserman doesn’t want to admit is that yes the Democrats have spent your Social Security money and continue to do so and now Social Security is in the red. The Social Security money is GONE and now Congress is printing money and burrowing money to pay Social Security benefits. Not being good enough Democrats have also raided $555 billion from the Medicare fund; Paul Ryan is 100% correct about that.

The truth is there is no more Social Security to even invest to help prefund American’s retirement. The money is GONE. Congress has spent the money and there is not enough money coming into Social Security any more to take care of current benefits. Now that the Social Security pile of money is gone the Democrats have begun to raid Medicare funds.

As modest as Paul Ryan’s proposal is Walorski’s position is even more modest. Walorski has proposed (and stated 100 times) that there be no changes to the current Social Security system for current retirees and for those going into the system in the near future with the exception that Congress stop spending Social Security funds on other things.

For those who are very young such as age 30, those people should be given the option of having a personal account that politicians can’t raid and have the option of using a small percentage of that account to be invested in the same type of lucrative retirement plan that Members of Congress have. No one ever proposed taking Social Security funds and tossing them all into the stock market. Democrats made this up some years ago and are still using it as a talking point in spite of the fact that every serious media outlet who has looked at these claims from Democrats have stated that they are just plain false, just as factcheck.org did.

In Donnelly’s TV ad he takes a carefully cherry picked snippet of Walorski explaining her position on this issue from a radio show and builds an entire false narrative around it to make it look as if Walorski is taking a position she just does not have. Of course Donnelly isn’t the only Democrat playing games with sound tape editing to be used as a smear tool:

Rep. Grayson Lowers the Bar – The Florida Democrat manipulates video to make his opponent seem to urge wives to ‘submit’ to husbands. He didn’t.

We thought Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida reached a low point when he falsely accused his opponent of being a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, and of not loving his country. But now Grayson has lowered the bar even further. He’s using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said.

More Lies from Desperate Democrats: Targeting The Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove

This post is a part of our new “LIES” category.

The charge? Democrats are accusing the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove of using illegal foreign money to fund campaign issue ads. [Ironically MoveOn.org, the most well-known Democrat PAC which ran the add, gets a large portion of its funding from Hungarian billionaire George Soros.]

Even the Associated Press, New York Times,  and Factcheck.org say this charge was baseless.

But who is it that uses illegal foreign money? Obama accepted money from untraceable prepaid credit cards from foreign banks. Also if the contribution is under $200 the details do not have to be reported to the FCC. Bloggers obtained credit cards from foreign banks and used them to make a contribution on Obama’s web site. McCain’s web site was set up to prevent this.

Obama taking illegal foreign money – LINK

Obama taking illegal foreign money – LINK

Obama taking illegal foreign money – LINK

Obama taking illegal foreign money – LINK

Obama taking illegal foreign money – LINK

Gore taking illegal foreign money – LINK

Clintons taking illegal foreign money – LINK

Clintons taking illegal foreign money – LINK

 

UPDATE – After Glenn Beck explained on his radio show how the Democrats are attacking the Chamber of Commerce, which represents businesses from mom and pop shops to companies with names we would know, the Chamber had the single largest day of donations to its web site in history. Donate Today – https://www.uschambersmallbusinessnation.com/join-us/make-a-donation

More Lies from Desperate Democrats: Targeting Target Stores

This post starts the beginning of our new “LIES” category.

Target Corporation gave a modest donation to a business group called Minnesota Forward. Minnesota Forward  created an ad supporting a Republican candidate who happens to be against gay marriage, which is the same position that Obama, Biden, Palin, McCain, Clinton, Reagan and Bush have on the issue.

Moveon.org  comes out with an ad saying that Target is buying our elections and is “anti-gay”. Of course target has never had a problem with gay employees being harassed or unfairly treated.

Of course Wall Street and most big industries support Democrats.

McMahon destroy’s Blumenthal in debate: Maybe you misspoke again!

This post is a part of our new “LIES” category.

Thanks to RightScoop for the heads up on this video!

Democrat Strategy: Lie & Sling Mud

This post is a part of our new “LIES” category.

Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Democratic candidates across the country are opening a fierce offensive of negative advertisements against Republicans, using lawsuits, tax filings, reports from the Better Business Bureau and even divorce proceedings to try to discredit their opponents and save their congressional majority.

Opposition research and attack advertising are deployed in almost every election, but these biting ads are coming far earlier than ever before, according to party strategists. The campaign has intensified in the past two weeks as early voting begins in several states and as vulnerable incumbents try to fight off an onslaught of influences by outside groups.

As they struggle to break through with economic messages, many Democrats are deploying the fruits of a yearlong investigation into the business and personal histories of Republican candidates in an effort to plant doubts about them and avoid having races become a national referendum on the performance of President Obama and his party.

Democratic candidates across the country are opening a fierce offensive of negative advertisements against Republicans, using lawsuits, tax filings, reports from the Better Business Bureau and even divorce proceedings to try to discredit their opponents and save their congressional majority.

Opposition research and attack advertising are deployed in almost every election, but these biting ads are coming far earlier than ever before, according to party strategists. The campaign has intensified in the past two weeks as early voting begins in several states and as vulnerable incumbents try to fight off an onslaught of influences by outside groups.

As they struggle to break through with economic messages, many Democrats are deploying the fruits of a yearlong investigation into the business and personal histories of Republican candidates in an effort to plant doubts about them and avoid having races become a national referendum on the performance of President Obama and his party.

So far, many Republican candidates are defending themselves but not taking the bait by starting their own offensives. A review of television advertisements presented since Labor Day showed that the Republicans were basing theirs almost entirely on the records of Democrats on health care, the economic stimulus package and the first vote the Democrats cast when Congress convened in 2009: for making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House.

As we can see in out own local race, and in the silly name calling Democrats are engaging in against Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and against Sharon Angle in Nevada. Democrats repeatedly accused South Carolina Governor Candidate Nikki Haley of having multiple affairs as if she was some kind of whore, but never offered proof to support it. Also notice how Democrats get especially nasty and personal when the Republican candidate is a woman.

South Carolina's Next Governor Nikki Haley

Here are other examples of the lying:

The lie; Wasserman is misrepresenting Ryan’s  position on Social Security. He doesn’t want to completely privatize it at all, he proposed as a possible alternative to offer people under age 55 the option of investing a fraction of their money in personal accounts in the same way that Congress has their retirement plan run. The plan that Congress has is partially private and partially ran by the government. All investments are carefully vetted and the money is very much diversified so if 1 of 25 investments loses some the others make money. The plan Congress has for themselves is ran VERY well and is quite lucrative. Of course what Wasserman doesn’t want to admit is that yes the Democrats have spent your Social Security money and continue to do so and now Social Security is in the red. The Social Security money is GONE and now Congress is printing money and burrowing money to pay Social Security benefits. Not being good enough Democrats have also raided $555 billion from the Medicare fund; Paul Ryan is 100% correct about that.

More Lies:

FactCheck.org Blasts Donnelley’s False Claims

Factcheck.org: Democratic Rep. Grayson wrongly says that his opponent ‘refused’ Vietnam service; claims he ‘doesn’t love this country.’

Factcheck.org: Labor union spends a pretty penny on misleading ads against GOP House candidates in Michigan and Nevada.

Factcheck.org: Obama’s (Latest) Social Security Whopper – The president claims Republican leaders are as eager to ‘privatize’ Social Security as they are to repeal his health care law. That’s not true.

Factcheck.org: In Indiana’s Senate race, Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth falsely alleged that his Republican opponent Dan Coats was involved in the closing of an automotive plant that left more than 800 people out of work.

Factcheck.org: The Democrat falsely accuses his likely Republican opponent of a cover-up.

Factcheck.org: A Democratic ad claims a GOP House candidate pledged to protect breaks for sending jobs abroad. He didn’t.

Now check this one out:

An independent group financed by labor unions distorts Whitman’s record as president and chief executive officer of eBay, the online auction site. The ad:

• Says “overhead” expenses rose 2,000 percent from 1999 through 2007, without taking into account the phenomenal growth of a company that saw its payroll expand during that time from 138 employees to approximately 15,500;
• Blames her for “failed mergers,” although she had more successes than failures, and falsely accuses her of resigning as a result of bad business deals;

MORE:

Minnesota’s race for governor is pitting corporate money against money from labor unions and wealthy Democrats. So far, the misleading attack ads are all coming from the liberal side, and the corporate side is being badly outspent to boot. The Alliance for a Better Minnesota — a group funded by labor unions and the family of Democratic contender Mark Dayton — has raised nearly $1.7 million so far. Its ads have:

• Accused GOP-endorsed candidate Tom Emmer of sponsoring a bill to “reduce penalties for drunk drivers.” That’s misleading. The bill would have required that accused drunk drivers be penalized only if convicted.
• Said Emmer was “arrested twice himself for drunk driving.” That’s true — but the arrests were nearly 20 and 30 years ago.
• Claimed Emmer voted against “corporations and CEOs” paying higher taxes. That’s false. He voted against a Democratic bill to raise state income taxes for all upper-income individuals — not corporations.
• Claimed Emmer’s vote “created” a huge state deficit. That’s false as well. The deficit existed prior to Emmer’s vote against a Democratic plan to raise taxes to help close it.

On the other side, a group funded by Minnesota-based Target Corp. and several other corporations raised $1.1 million and has run a single, factually accurate ad supporting Emmer.
mm

Claims the new CEO cut her “bloated spending” after taking control of the company, but the economic downturn — not Whitman’s performance — was cited as the principal reason for the layoffs and spending cuts.

DNC Chair: Donnelly Running Away From Who He Is

Amazing. Joe Donnelly voted for most of this nonsense and now he is acting like he was a crusader against Pelosi. Gimme a break. Hence why Tim Caine, the head of the Democrat National Committee, says that Joe is running away from who he is. UPDATE – AP: Vulnerable House Democrats work to hide party ties

FactCheck.org Blasts Donnelley’s False Claims

This post is a part of our new “LIES” category.

It is good to see Factcheck.org getting it right, epecially in a tight race like this. Donnelly is risking it all with this dishonest smear campaign.  With that said sometimes FactCheck.org really blows it so do not consider this post a complete endorsement of them.

FactCheck:

A Democratic incumbent in Indiana falsely claims his Republican challenger wants to abolish the popular federal Pell Grant program for needy college students. Rep. Joe Donnelly, who is running for reelection in Indiana’s 2nd District, based his charge on a questionnaire Republican Jackie Walorski submitted to a conservative group. But that questionnaire doesn’t even mention the Pell Grant program.

The ad, titled “College,” first aired Sept. 9. It begins ominously: “Who will help your family afford college?”

The announcer responds: “Jackie Walorski wants to eliminate Pell Grants. The program that helps thousands of Hoosier families pay for college. Walorski would even abolish the entire Department of Education.”

But the Donnelly campaign uses faulty logic to reach its conclusion. The campaign points to the second and third items on a questionnaire Walorski submitted to the Independence Caucus, a conservative group known as iCaucus. Both questions are about federal regulation in areas including education. On the third question, Walorski answered “yes,” when asked if she would “commit to oppose the expansion and/or perpetuation of any and all EXISTING federal legislation and regulations in areas that are not constitutionally enumerated; and are therefore reserved as the exclusive province of the states, such as Education, Energy, Welfare, Labor issues, Non-Interstate roads, farm subsidies etc.” She also answered yes on the second question, regarding “PROPOSED legislation.”

Walorski’s vision of a smaller federal government may or may not include a federal Department of Education. Kristine Cassady, the executive director of iCaucus, told us in an e-mail that “the 2010 iCaucus questionnaire referred to in Mr. Donnelly’s recent television ad asks no questions regarding the Department of Education or Pell Grants.” That’s true about Pell Grants, but the questionnaire is broadly written and vague enough that Walorski’s views on abolishing the Department of Education are open to interpretation.

The Walorski campaign maintained that its candidate “has never said” that she wants to abolish the Department of Education. Still, she clearly has strong beliefs about what the Department of Education should and shouldn’t be doing. She gave a radio interview (begin at 2:10) to iCaucus, in which she said that “we don’t want the federal government coming in and mandating things … in areas like education, where the Constitution says … it’s the jobs of states to provide education.”

Even if Walorski wanted to eliminate the Department of Education — and there is no evidence of that — Donnelly jumps to a false conclusion that she would necessarily eliminate all the programs it currently administers.

In fact, question 38 of the questionnaire specifically asks about the future funding of “more than 240 education programs.” It doesn’t mention abolishing the programs. Instead, it asks: “Do you commit to support legislation establishing a mandatory Sunset Clause in all spending legislation that provides for its expiration on a specified date unless it is deliberately renewed?” Walorski said yes.

So, Walorski has said she believes that it is good policy to set a “sunset” date by which education programs would expire unless reauthorized. Would she vote to renew Pell Grants? We don’t know, and neither does the Donnelly campaign.

In an e-mail to us, Matthew Kirby, Walorski’s campaign manager, said: “Walorski has never said she wants to eliminate Pell Grants or abolish DoE, but will consider freezing discretionary spending and support an audit to determine where cuts can be made.”

Time-Yahoo News Blast Obama & Donnelly

UPDATE – Wow, even the AP blasted Donnelly. AP: Vulnerable House Democrats work to hide party ties

Time-Yahoo News:

The Barack Obama that most Hoosiers remember voting for can still be found on YouTube. He stands before a cheering Elkhart high school gymnasium in August 2008, tireless, aspirational, promising a new America of jobs and hope. “We can choose another future,” says the newcomer with the funny name. “So I ask you to join me.”

Today that view of Obama is harder to find in Indiana. A couple of weeks back and a dozen miles west of Elkhart, hundreds gathered in another school gym – except this time it was for a job fair. With the local unemployment rate above 12% and rising again this summer, about a third of the employer display tables stood empty. Julie Griffin, who voted for Obama in ’08, sat down at the room’s edge, well dressed and discouraged. After 23 years as a payroll administrator at a local RV plant, she got laid off 18 months ago. “Really, what has he been doing?” she said when I asked about Obama’s efforts to help people like her. “I guess I don’t know what he is doing.” (See TIME’s 2008 Person of the Year: Barack Obama.)

Across the gym floor, Joe Donnelly, Elkhart’s pro-life, pro-gun Democratic Congressman, worked the crowd. He was part of the moderate wave that won Congress for Nancy Pelosi in ’06, and he was re-elected with 67% of the vote while campaigning for Obama in ’08. The President has since returned to the region three times, but Donnelly is nonetheless fighting for his political life. In a recent television ad, an unflattering photo of Obama and Pelosi flashes while Donnelly condemns “the Washington crowd.” This is basically a Democratic campaign slogan now: Don’t blame me for Obama and Pelosi. “I’m not one of them,” Donnelly told me when I caught up with him. “I’m one of us.” (See the top 10 Obama backlash moments.)

[IUSB Vision Editor Comments: Donnelly who voted to take the vote away from unions with card check legislation, voted for stimulus, porkulus, and ObamaCare which can allow for taxpayer funded abortions now dares to insult the voter’s intelligence by running against the very Democratic Leadership he betrayed Indiana voters for.]

This shift in perception – from Obama as political savior to Obama as creature of Washington – can be seen elsewhere. When Obama arrived in office in January ’09, his Gallup approval rating stood at 68%, a high for a newly elected leader not seen since John Kennedy in 1961. Today Obama’s job approval has been hovering in the mid-40s, which means that at least 1 in 4 Americans has changed his or her mind. The plunge has been particularly dramatic among independents, whites and those under age 30. With midterm elections just nine weeks off, instead of the generational transformation some Democrats predicted after 2008, the President’s party teeters on the brink of a broad setback in November, including the possible loss of both houses of Congress. By a 10-point margin, people say they will vote for Republicans over Democrats in Congress, the largest such gap ever recorded by Gallup. (See pictures of Obama behind the scenes on Inauguration Day.)

White House aides explain this change as a largely inevitable reflection of the cycles of history. Midterms are almost always bad for first-term Presidents, and worse in hard times. “The public is rightly frustrated and angry with the economy,” says Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s communications director, explaining the White House line. “There is no small tactical shift we could have made at any point that would have solved that problem.” In more confiding moments, aides admit that the peak of Obama’s popularity may have been inflated, a fleeting result of elation at the prospect of change and national pride in electing the first African-American President. As one White House aide puts it, “It was sort of fake.” (Comment on this story.)

But while these explanations may be valid, they are also incomplete. A sense of disappointment, bordering on betrayal, has been growing across the country, especially in moderate states like Indiana, where people now openly say they didn’t quite understand the President they voted for in 2008. The fear most often expressed is that Obama is taking the country somewhere they don’t want to go. “We bought what he said. He offered a lot of hope,” says Fred Ferlic, an Obama voter and orthopedic surgeon in South Bend who has since soured on his choice. Ferlic talks about the messy compromises in health care reform, his sense of an inhospitable business climate and the growth of government spending under Obama. “He’s trying to Europeanize us, and the Europeans are going the other way,” continues Ferlic, a former Democratic campaign donor who plans to vote Republican this year. “The entire American spirit is being broken.”

Wow, this blistering article coming from Time, who’s left wing cred is beyond reproach, is devestating. LBJ said that when he lost far left broadcaster Walter Cronkite he knew he had lost America, when Obama has lost liberal icons such as Time and David Letterman it is indicative of how much change upcoming elections are likely to be.

Stupak’s “Pro-Life” Caucus $4.7 Billion in Earmark Funds after Voting for Public Funding of Abortion

The myth of the pro-life Democrat continues…

The Sunlight Foundation (hat tip HotAir):

A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the “Stupak 11” released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion–an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.

Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money this week than they did a year ago: Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., and Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Ohio.

The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, which passed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.

Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

The Myth of the Pro-Life Democrat in Congress – UPDATED!

UPDATE III – Stupak’s “Pro-Life” Caucus $4.7 Billion in Earmark Funds after Voting for Public Funding of Abortion

Editor’s Note – The moral of this story is, politicians lie, the lies are often planned in advance using rhetorical strategies such as “triangulation”. It does not matter what party a politician is in, they lie. A party in power will lie more than a party out of power. My experience has been that about 10% of the politicians I have encountered are true statesmen. Some lie worse than others. Some tell big fat whoppers and some just dissemble a little.

A politician is a true master of telling the majority of people what they want to hear, even if that means dividing the people up and telling different groups opposite things. We need to be more comfortable calling out the liars as liars, both to their face and to the people. Now that we face economic ruin from losing our AAA rating too much is at stake to allow our public servants to speak such bold faced whoppers with a smile in the name of nicety.

By the way – Meet Bart Stupak’s Republican Challenger – LINK.

Bart Stupak, the self-proclaimed leader of the “pro-life Democrats”, after repeatedly promising to vote no on national TV, voted yes in exchange for a promise to sign an executive order from Obama to not allow federal funding of abortion. A promise from the most pro-abortion president in history, who even supported laws protecting infanticide as a state legislator in Illinois that NARAL wouldn’t even support.   

Indiana’s own Mike Pence on Stupak:

Pence – Members of congress exchanged 30 years of pro-life law for a piece of paper from the most pro-abortion president in American history. … There is public funding for abortion in this bill…. An executive order cannot change the law. Such an executive order would be thrown out by the courts.

Bart Stupak knows this for he is not a stupid man. I have always said that Stupak would cave and so have many others, because the leadership of the Democratic Party are no longer Democrats, they are statist progressives who see the state as the highest moral authority. In that vote we saw 34 real Democrats join with Republicans to vote no, in the face of 219 statist progressives.

Phyllis Schlafly comments HERE.

UPDATE – So after going on national TV promising and promising to never vote for a bill that included public funding of abortion, after going on and on how standing up for life in the Democratic Party is a living hell,  look at what Stupak said in front of a small audience when he didn’t know he was being recorded last year – Via NewsReal: 

UPDATE II – The law on executive orders and what Obama used to say about them from last night’s debate: