The Contradiction of Leftist Opinion: Scott Walker, Tom Cotton, et al

The liberal media complex is usually singular in its vision--agitprop. Push the meme, secure the front against argument, then debilitate opposing viewpoints with ridicule. A very to the point mechanical process that has been honed through years of practice and study. 

But sometimes the meme's get tangled and the realism of their untruth reveal the true intentions of its propagators.

One one side, Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker is a blooming idiot and doesn't deserve to even be thought of as Presidential material since he doesn't possess...gasp!...a college degree!

What a snob! On today's Morning Joe, Howard Dean, a product of fancy prep schools and Yale, suggested that Scott Walker was unfit to be president because his lack of a college degree rendered him "unknowledgeable." 

Dean's disdain for the un-diplomaed came during a discussion of Walker having declined, during his recent trip to the UK, to state whether he believes in evolution. Joe Scarborough was incredulous at Dean's diss, pointing out that people such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg never finished college. To which list could be added super-successful and knowledgeable people from Rush Limbaugh to Steve Jobs, among many others...

On the other side of the coin is Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

Here is the latest from the National Inquirer of Liberal political rags, Salon, by a useless opinionator whose scribble is perfectly suited for such an environment, Heather Digby.

Tom Cotton is Ted Cruz with a war record, Sarah Palin with a Harvard degree, Chris Christie with a Southern accent — a force to be reckoned with. He may sound like he’s speaking gibberish to you or to me when he asks why there were no prisoners in Guantánamo before the prison existed, but to the Republican base he’s speaking their language as clear as day and it will fit nicely on a bumper sticker: “Let ‘em rot.”

The utter hilarity of the Left's dualistic  thought processes and contradicting dumbfuckery is on full parade here. One man is to "unknowlegable" to arrive to any station higher than the one he has already achieved. The other, educated in one of the highest bastions of Liberal thought, Harvard Law--the same law program which our President graduated from--and a successful member of the US armed force and he speaks "gibberish."  

Their high crime? Both are real time threats to the Liberal power base. Moreover, either they are in the process of developing a more in depth and meaningful record or they have already succeeded. Additionally and more importantly, they are both Republicans.

As you wade through the ridiculousness you can see that either you are to dumb, because of a lack of a college degree, or you are to stupid, even if you attended a Liberal institute of higher education. However, I might add the real issue here  isn't education or the lack of; the main problem is not following the Leftist orthodoxy and/or successfully combating it. For that you must be punished, minimized, and thus eradicated. 

Continue reading ...

Liberal Hypocrisy: Deaths caused by EIT's 0...deaths caused by drone strikes...3,674.

Since last year's ambush report released by Senator Dianne Feinstein,  accused the CIA of committing some fairly odious acts against terrorist operatives, the fallout that was supposed to follow has  generally been an empty nothing. Call it the 'thud of silence'. Nevertheless, the protesting malcontent crowd was pretty ginned up and raucous in their usual slacktivist ways. (For further situational awareness may I recommend going on Twitter and typing in  #TortureReport to observe the rabidity. If there observations don't make you laugh they sure as hell will make you cry laughing.)

Ironically though this little nugget below doesn't seemed to have done much in the way of motivation for the brain deficient lemmings on the American Left. 

The most consistent and era-defining tactic of America’s post-9/11 counterterrorism strategies has been the targeted killing of suspected terrorists and militants outside of defined battlefields. As one senior Bush administration official explained in October 2001, “The president has given the [CIA] the green light to do whatever is necessary. Lethal operations that were unthinkable pre-September 11 are now underway.” Shortly thereafter, a former CIA official told the New Yorker, “There are five hundred guys out there you have to kill.” It is quaint to recall that such a position was considered extremist and even morally unthinkable. Today, these strikes are broadly popular with the public and totally uncontroversial in Washington, both within the executive branch and on Capitol Hill. Therefore, it is easy to forget that this tactic, envisioned to be rare and used exclusively for senior al-Qaeda leaders thirteen years ago, has become a completely accepted and routine foreign policy activity. 

Thus, just as you probably missed the tenth anniversary—November 3, 2012—of what I labeled the Third War, it’s unlikely you will hear or read that the United States just launched its 500th non-battlefield targeted killing. 

As of today, the United States has now conducted 500 targeted killings (approximately 98 percent of them with drones), which have killed an estimated 3,674 people, including 473 civilians. Fifty of these were authorized by President George W. Bush, 450 and counting by President Obama. Noticeably, these targeted killings have not diminished the size of the targeted groups according to the State Department’s own numbers.

No outrage, nor gnashing of teeth, no nothing...just hypocrisy. 

Maybe we should drop another $40 million and investigate this administration and see how heinous and insidious this program really is, because it sure as hell has killed a lot more people than any recently used EIT has. 

Continue reading ...

Liberal Desperation: Agenda Project Action Fund blames Republicans for EBOLA crisis because of budget cuts.

Yesterday I highlighted an interview with Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute for Health, and the Huffington Post. In this interview Dr. Collins declared that the reason the United States does not have an ebola vaccine or treatment was due to budget cuts. However, some research provided a little bit of  a different story. Now it seems that a liberal PAC has created an ad that lays the blame for Ebola solely at the feet of the GOP. Now there are many things you could honestly blame the GOP for, however, Ebola and the results of the horrible disease are not one of them. 

The rest of the one-minute ad is peppered with clips of Republicans asking for cuts, interspersed with top officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health saying the Ebola outbreak in West Africa could have been better handled if their agencies had more funding. NIH head Francis Collins said in an interview published Sunday that an Ebola vaccine might have been developed by now if it were not for a “10-year slide in research support.”
Erica Payne, the producer of the ad and president of the Agenda Project Action Fund, blamed the Ebola crisis wholly on the Republican Party.
“I think any Republican who attempts to chalk this ad up to politics is a Republican who is too afraid to examine the results of his of her actions and the very real consequences that they have,” she said. “They have developed a governing philosophy that is so fanatically anti-investment that they literally have at their doorstop death. There is no exaggeration in this.
“I think that the blame for the situation that we’re in now with the Ebola crisis is 100% the fault of Republicans and their fanatical anti-government philosophy,” she added. “They did this.”

This political scare-mongering reminded me of the video in which a mock Paul Ryan was shown pushing "grandma" off of a cliff in her wheelchair back in  2012. The Ryan video was also brought to us by the Agenda Project Action Fund (APAF), the creators of the abovementioned Ebola video. It seems the slime merchants over at the APAF have a penchant for attempting to cash in on the fear which is currently gripping the national consciousness.

Another point of interest is that this video is now garnering some attention around the same time Dr. Collins is out on the stump in interview after interview, blaming budget cuts for the NIH, more specifically NIAID, for the lack of an EBOLA treatment.  This to a skeptical mind might smack of political coordination and back room dealing to get attention off of the real problem. The inefficient way in which TEN different government organizations deal with the development and manufacturing of treatments for infectious diseases!

Continue reading ...

Amity Shlaes and the Party of Growth

For those not familiar with Amity Shlaes, she is a political commentator for Bloomberg News, senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of The Forgotten Man. An extremely impressive historical account of the Great Depression.

In her most recent article Shlaes, an admitted classical liberal, brings up the supposition that the Republicans, "instead of blowing up their marriages, Republicans might try blowing up their party platform. Her chosen route is by "junking the social conservatism," and sticking to a more fiscal and economic platform.

While I am not in total disagreement, leaving behind the traditional moral aspects of conservatism leaves us with nothing more than the political jello that is Libertarianism. And, if I wanted to be a full-time Libertine than I would have an (L) on my voter registration card, not an (I) or (R).

However, from a strategically political point of view, Shlaes does have a point. Social cons have been one of the greatest assets as well as greatest scourges to the Republicans. From Nixon's Southern strategy to George Bush's back-to-back victories, the GOP reaped major spoils from the Religious Right's involvement, activism, and most of all, money. Now though, the moral edifying is catching up with the Grand Old Party and not just in ones or twos, but maybe threes.

This leaves conservatives and Republicans with one of two choices; take the more fiscal and Federalist road as Shales suggests or start producing a crop of candidates whom can talk the talk as well as walk the walk of social conservatism.

Hypocrisy can be one of the greatest undoings of a person or a movement, especially when the bar is set way too high for leaders to deliver on. Likewise, most liberals and progressives have already factored in the component of human hypocirsy and ineptitude into their political equation, as a matter of face they relish in it.

Now it is up to conservatives to decide if they have have the fortitude necessary to get off of the high road and back to the narrow or find some new message packaging that is more effective for obtaining votes.

(h/t to Little Miss Attila)

Continue reading ...

The Foreign Policy Initiative's Open Letter to President Obama

While my prime penchant is politics, my first and foremost love of its sub-categories is anything economic. This is because it is what truly greases the tracks of government and is the fuel for its engine. Nevertheless, my second love, under the vast umbrella of anything politic, is foreign policy. With that being said, here is an interesting letter written to the President from The Foreign Policy Initiative.

This is brought to you by way of an old bloggin' buddy to whom I have not linked in a VERY long time. The jingoistic, colorful, sexily written, and un-apologetically hawkish GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD

July 1, 2009

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

You have stated your intention to forge a positive relationship between the United States and Russia. We write on the eve of your summit meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev to express our belief that such a relationship requires a commitment by both countries to democracy and human rights and to urge you to reiterate that these values, which you have called universal, are inextricably linked to humane behavior at home and responsible behavior abroad. Furthermore, we ask you to meet with human rights, civil society, labor and opposition political party leaders while you are in Moscow.

Since Vladimir Putin became President in 2000, Russia has been on a downward spiral away from the democratic and economic reforms made in the 1990’s after the collapse of communism. Human rights activists, opposition political party leaders, lawyers and journalists are targets of brutal, even deadly attacks. Freedoms of speech and the media are increasingly limited by the state and the Kremlin has asserted growing authority over the economy, especially the energy sector.

We urge you to challenge Russian leaders about the lack of political and economic freedom in Russia. In your Cairo speech you stated that the freedom of speech, the ability to choose one's own government and way of life, the rule of law and transparency “are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” Moreover you noted the connection between democracy and security, asserting that “governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure." This principle gained even more salience as Russia's invasion of Georgia last year revealed the lengths to which it will go to assert a sphere of influence in the region.

For decades, the United States was a beacon of hope to those behind the Iron Curtain who longed for their freedom. As you stated in Prague, after the Iron Curtain was lifted “freedom spread like flowing water. Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st.”

As you go forward, we hope that you will maintain a clear-eyed assessment of Russia’s intentions and keep the above principles in mind in order to ensure that the effort to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations does not come at the expense of the Russian people or Russia's neighbors.

What I find absolutely astounding in this intriguing letter is the list of people who have signed it. I have long talked about the lack of differences that modern day progressives and neo-conservatives share on matters of foreign policy. I coincidentally found a smattering of evidence to back this up.

This is nothing conspiratorial, just an observation that it is difficult sometimes to tell these two supposedly different political philosophies apart. A few of the signatories of this letter illustrate my point.

Larry Cox-Executive Director of Amnesty International USA

Morton H. Halperin-Senior Vice President and Director of Fellows at the Center for American Progress

Gare A. Smith-Presently employed at Foley-Hoag LLP (Foley Hoag is one of many large law firms providing counsel to the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.)and deals with Human Rights Impact Assessments and country-specific due diligence regarding the risks associated with social and environmental issues.

Leon Wieseltier-Literary editor for the highly progressive magazine The New Republic

R. James Woolsey, Jr.-Evidently a neo-conservative Democrat, whatever that is.

Stephen Rickard-Executive director of the Open Society Policy Center (OSPC) and a member of the Board of Directors. (Assumption being made on this gentleman due to the mission statement of the OSPC and his involvement with Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.)

As I stated above, this is nothing conspiratorial, just a point of interest that some of the people whom they have co-signed this with are unabashedly hawkish neoconservatives with strong ties to the Bush Administration. Just strange company for these "progressives" and "liberals" to be keeping considering their political stripes.

Continue reading ...

Republican and Conservative Women, The Body Politic

You know, Stacy McCain made a great point, via Ann Coulter, that the stereotypical conservative guy is seen as being some aged, balding, white guy, with a bad complexion and he sweats too much. Well, it got me thinking about the stereotypical view of conservative woman also.

Here is what used to pop in my mind.



Here is the reality though.


Can't forget the recent advent of one Michelle Muccio, the Rebel Economist.



Oh if I only lived back in DC the Rebel would have a stalker...er...admirer!!

Let's not forget to mention the field of candidates and elected officials that conservatives are offering up these days.

Love her or hate her, you have to admit that is a million dollar smile.

How can you go wrong with a woman who is over fifty, hot, and loves the 2nd Amendment?

Another million dollar smile in the making.

Even FOX News has an impressive line-up.






Of course we cannot forget our Democratic colleagues, that just wouldn't be fair or fun. Here are the women of the Left.



Ooooh, did someone turn my stool upside down again? You jokers!



Aaah, I love when the tingle goes up my leg!!



Hey Olberman, I turned your stool upside down. You have room for one more???

Well here are some of their men.





Whew!! Glad I am on the Right!!

Finally, I know this is juvenile but the world is too damn serious these days and a little humor, even if it is tasteless, is what we need from time to time.

Continue reading ...

Liberal bloggers want their bailout, too.

According to a post on Gary Sargent's, The Plum Line, liberal bloggers are "angry" with some top progressive organizations for, get this, not sharing the wealth.

I guess most of the self-professed progressives are just corporate whores at heart after all.

Here are some of their complaints they gave in an interview with Sargent.

Jane Hamsher of Fire Dog Lake (While I don't agree with her politics, Hamsher is actually a pretty good writer. I have often wondered why she wastes her time blogging and not writing political commentary for a big name media outlet.)

“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”

Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos,

“Most want the easy way — having a big blogger promote their agenda,” adds Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos. “Then they turn around and spend $50K for a one-page ad in the New York Times or whatever.” Moulitsas adds that officials at such groups often do nothing to engage the sites’s audiences by, say, writing posts, instead wanting the bloggers to do everything for them.

John Avarosis of Americablog,

“We don’t invest in the future, and Republicans do,” says John Aravosis, the founder of AMERICAblog. “The party committees really get that we can be effective as their partners and that we’re happy to help, and they take advantage of that. But even so, very little ad money comes from them. It’s more than just wanting to share in the spoils. We are small business-people who are fighting to survive economically in a really bad year.”

John Amato of Crooks and Liars,

Adds John Amato, the founder of Crooks and Liars: “These groups actually believe that we should promote their stuff for free. Do they not understand that we need funds to sustain our viability?

First off, it would be advantageous to remind our Far-Left comrades that no one owes you $hit. If Left wing bloggers are willing to supplicate these groups without considering their own need for capital to remain solvent, why should the groups in question take time to give it any thought?

My second point is numbers. Each of the above mentioned blogs might aggregate a few thousand hits per day, possibly tens of thousands. This proportionately is a very small amount of the population of this country. It is in the best interest of Progressive activists to pay publications, like the New York Times for example, to disseminate their message. They will reach a much larger target audience than any of these blogs could ever hope to.

Also, most of the readers of these particular blogs are already committed to their political stances, there is nothing to change. The only thing these blogs provide is a format for generating talking points, big deal. Organizations such as think tanks or activist groups are looking for new blood, not people they already have.

Another point overlooked by our left leaning comrades, they are not the paragons of enlightened thought as they might view themselves. I understand they might start believing their own BS after awhile, but, in the big picture only a small fraction of the world might care about what their opinion is on matters. The same rule applies to us here, although our numbers are substantially smaller.(Thanks Mom and Dad!) Why would anyone with any modicum of sanity pay someone for blind arrogance?

Finally, our little gimme somethin' for nothin' band of narcissists needs to be reminded of a very important fact. Anyone, left or right, depending on blogging to generate a sustainable income or looks at it as a "small business" needs to have their head examined. My suggestion, get a day job, they come highly recommended.

(H/T to memeorandum)

Continue reading ...

Think Progress: Nation evenly divided between Right and Left

The progressive blog, Think Progress, posted and interesting article about the ideological slant of the United States. According to the finding, 47 percent of Americans identifying as progressive or liberal and 48 percent as conservative or libertarian and the rest confused. The findings were provided by the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress.

While a slightly larger percentage of Americans are indicating they fall into the category of conservative or libertarian, Think Progress seems to insinuating that there is an ideological shift to progressivism, with regards to policy.

Think Progress-A nation that is evenly split in its political identity is decidedly center-left in its policy orientation.

The are a few problems with this particular "study." Some of the questions indicated ownership of certain issues by liberals and progressives. If you supported those issues it inherently put you in the category of left leaning. Take a gander at the four they tout as supposedly indicating this movement to a more liberal/progressive sense of direction.

• By a margin of almost nine to one, Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth,” (79 percent agree, 12 percent neutral, 9 percent disagree).

First off, Conservatives and Libertarians both agree on the view that government is a "necessary evil" in the Jeffersonian sense. Government investments in education, science, and infrastructure are acceptable, as long as it does not abridge Constitutionally authority or result in ridiculous spending.

• More than three in four Americans (76 percent) also agree with the president’s argument that “America’s economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.”

Yes it does. This has become a major issue national security issue for the United States. The major factor Conservatives and Libertarians have is the subsidizing of green renewable energy and these industries being presented as the ONLY solution.

A fairer and more scientific line of question should have been presented such as, "Do you think strictly relying on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are the future for our economic development?" "Or should we implement a balanced, but temporary, approach which includes clean coal, clean shale, and off shore drilling as well as green initiatives?"

• Nearly three in four Americans believe that “government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers,”

Again, Conservatives and Libertarians are not against government regulation. The role of the government, to a small extent, is to protect the American people from being taken advantage of by big business, illicit business practices, and corporate malfeasance. However it is not the role of government to over regulate in the name of protection an try to achieve control over those particular industries.

• Nearly two in three Americans (65 percent) agree that “the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American.”

This question is the furthest reaching in my opinion. Guaranteeing affordable health care does not equate to a lefty progressive stance. If the government provided nationalized health care or mandated that individuals and businesses have to carry health care this would be a decidedly progressive/liberal ideal. Just agreeing to this tenet does not make one left leaning though. The federal government could provide incentives through tax rebates for individuals or businesses to make the burden of obtaining health care easier.

The major line of questioning seemed directed to slant you in the direction of Liberal/Progressive and were quite broad. In the Center's defense though, questions on the economy and national defense were much more narrow.

Here is the link to the quiz, if you interested in taking it. This evidently is representative of the questioning used by the Center to make its determinations. It takes about 5 minutes and we are interested in opinion on its authenticity. If you decide to participate, please feel free to give us your feedback.

Continue reading ...

Democrats out paced by Conservatives 100-1

With Liberals and Progressives still in a state of Obamic euphoria, Conservatives and Republicans are just plain pissed off. CON-gress is getting inundated with calls from hopping mad Righties opposing the Porkulus package, outpacing LIE-beral calls of support by 100-1.

Scoop Le Rue, over at Conservative Exile, posted an article from the National Review Online showing how skeered our comrades on the Left are actually getting.

NRO-"Conservatives Are Beating Us 100 To 1!" was the headline of a mailing from the liberal activist group Campaign for America's Future. "We've gotten word from our progressive friends on Capitol Hill that for every one hundred phone calls to Congress from conservatives trying to obstruct change, there is only one phone call from a citizen demanding passage of President Obama's economic recovery bill," the mailing says. read more...

Chinks in the invincible Obama armor are starting to appear. Methinks the Prez is learning not all will bend to his wishes or hypnotic gaze. Keep up up the fight against the Obamination and his Porkulus.

Continue reading ...

Senate "Conservatives" Claim Opposition to Stimulus

The Alice's in RINO Land might have learned a little something from their GOP counterparts in the House. Senate Conservatives are vowing to oppose the Obastimulized Pork-Chop of 2009.

From LiberalizetheUSAtoday,

Some Senate Republicans vow opposition to stimulus plan

USA Today — A group of conservative Senate Republicans vowed Thursday to vote against an $888 billion economic stimulus package when it comes up for a vote in the Senate.

"A trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., standing with Republican colleagues who said they feel shut out of the process of crafting the stimulus despite Democratic promises of bipartisan cooperation.

President Obama lobbied Republican congressional leaders to support the measure, but the version of the stimulus bill approved Wednesday by the House did not receive any Republican votes. The Senate is expected to start debate on Monday and the bill is already facing resistance from some Republicans. read more..

Odds are that this will pass the Senate, you still have the Snowe/Voinovich/Spectre/Collins factors to deal with. McCain has stated he will vote against it, "in its present form." Graham will go the way of his dear old Dad, so how they factor into the equation is uncertain. Keep in mind, McCain is adept at maneuvering around his past statements and flip flopping. You know, a real Maverick, in his own mind.

Final lesson to the Senate GOP, most of the time your fingers operate independently of each other. However, once in awhile they can come together and form a fist. Losing is acceptable, but do it together. Break ranks and you might as well change your party affiliation to "D," you won't survive a GOP primary in 2010.

(H/T to RobV, over at The 46, for enlightening me to this article with his post, Senate Republicans Vow To Crush Stimulus.)

Continue reading ...

QUESTIONING ACORN?!?!? You are a racist!!

Pundit,




Ezra Klein over at the American Prospect, formerly, one of my favorite Left wing commentators, has succumbed to his own blog statement of “Momma Said Wonk You Out.” Klein is definitely wonked out in the worst of ways and is losing credibility fast. In his latest post, The Voter Fraud Fraud, Klein runs a blind gambit that poor little ACORN is falling prey to the big vast right wing conspiracy. He offers up a severely botchalized helping of Art Levine as his inspiration to this absurd conclusion. All this despite the monstrous amount of information to the contrary.

These two excerpts are from Levine’s article, which Klein presented on his blog, and he wasted not time in going form 0 to stupid.

Voter fraud is actually less likely to occur than lightning striking a person, according to data compiled by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.

Yet even after the Justice Department declared the war against voter fraud a "high priority," only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting in federal elections between 2002 and 2005 -- and nobody was even charged by Justice with impersonating another voter.

Absolutely, because ACORN is not involved voter fraud it is into what you call voter registration fraud. Voter fraud is not the issue; it is voter registration fraud or election fraud whatever you want to call it this week. Nice play on semantics eh? Well here are some convictions and indictments tied directly to ACORN for “voter registration fraud.”

• In the state of Missouri in 1986, 12 ACORN members were convicted of voter fraud.

• AR 1998-A contractor with ACORN-affiliated Project Vote was arrested for falsifying about 400 voter registration cards.

• MN 2004-During a traffic stop, police found more than 300 voter registration cards in the trunk of a former ACORN employee, who had violated a legal requirements that registration cards be submitted to the Secretary of State within 10 days of being filled out and signed.

• In Ohio in 2004, four ACORN employees were indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms.

• In January 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers were sentenced to community service for submitting false voter registrations.

• OH 2007-A man in Reynoldsburg was indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties.

• 2007, in Kansas City, Missouri, four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud.

• Five ACORN employees were convicted and imprisoned in Washington State, in 2007.

• PA 2008-An ACORN employee in West Reading, PA, was sentenced to up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and tampering with records. A second ACORN worker pleaded not guilty to the same charges and is free on $10,000 bail.

• In April of this year eight ACORN employees in St. Louis city and county pleaded guilty to federal election fraud for submitting bogus voter registrations.

• ACORN (Itself) is currently under investigation for fraudulent voter registration and related activities in at least 11 key battleground states.

But you better ignore all this cause Ezra has a warning for you,

In other words, when it comes to this ACORN stuff, there's nothing new under the sun. It's just that Republicans are more desperate, and more likely to lose, and there's more potential in stoking racial resentment and fear when the Democratic candidate is black, and so they're spending more time on it.

Yup, nothing new under the sun at all, ACORN is still as corrupt as it has always been. But you are a racist if you question what they are doing. Here is a little advice to Ezra and Art, where there is smoke there is usually a fire and ACORN is blazing.

None of this has anything to do with a Bush Justice Department, McCain claiming the election is being stolen from him, or a vast right wing conspiracy. It is about local voting official’s dong their jobs and reporting their findings to the proper authorities and years of allegations that have finally caught up with ACORN.

I would expect much better of the Left with their postulating about protecting voter’s rights. Aren’t they the group who was bitching and griping about hanging chads, phone jamming, and Rovian plans for massive vote tampering? Weren’t they leading the battle cry about the disenfranchisement of voters in 2000, swearing up and down Bush stole the election? I guess I am expecting to much from political infants.

-OmegaPundit


“The last word on everything.”

Continue reading ...

Palin Fact Check about Fiscal Conservatism

C.T.

Okay, let's look at the facts about Governor Palin in a realistic non-partisan view. Difficult with all the partisan rhetoric floating about, but not impossible. You have to be cognitive not emotional, like everyone, including myself, has been about Governor Palin. Let's start with the claims about her being a fiscal reformer. We are going to whom I consider the experts on fiscal reform, conservatism, and small government, CATO and the Libertarians. (No Brookings or Heritage on this one.)

Let's start with the "Bridge to Nowhere," first.

Palin has come under fire for supporting the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Ketchikan before she was against it. Aides said the cost of the bridge soared from $223 million to almost $400 million, prompting her to consider alternatives. [1]

My opinion of this assessment is that her support of the Bridge, at first, is a semantic that is being made into the main issue. If you want to claim a difference in ideological motivation go right ahead, but, it still does not change the end result that she blocked it because of wasteful and unnecessary spending. But because of her support and justifiable ideological criticism from Libertarians, I will give her a "B" on this one.

At best, Palin has been a convert on earmarks (and perhaps not a full convert). As governor of Alaska, she has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million for next year, according to indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens’ website, the Los Angeles Times reported. As mayor of Wasilla, Palin regularly traveled to Washington to request earmarks. The city obtained funding for several projects, including a bus depot ($600,000) and a water and sewer project ($1.5 million), according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. [1]

On this I do not like the earmark requests for her city, but what I do like is what she did with it, infrastructure. People are missing the concept on being a "fiscal reformer." It doesn't mean you will never accept money from the Federal government, it means you will eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. It means you will only accept money for or request what your constituents need and use that funding responsibly. Also, by the mainstream Libertarian philosophy the Federal government should only be involved in three areas, 1)National Security 2) Enforcement of Common Law 3) Infrastructure. To me this qualifies for the last. I will giver her a "B" again because of some ideological considerations.

She slashed her salary and cut property taxes by 40 percent because of booming sales tax revenue from new stores. [1]

But Palin also increased the budget by spending on roads and sewers, left the town nearly $20 million in debt and raised the city sales tax by half a percent (she said the money was needed to support construction of an indoor ice rink and sports complex and a police dispatch center). [1]

Again, spending on infrastructure I have no problem with. Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisisana just depleted the state's $1.1 billion surplus on infrastructure repairs. His concern is spending money on highway and port repairs and upgrades will bring in more revenues later. This is sound free market thought applied to government. What I mean is that Governor Jindal and Governor Palin both realized that in order to attract investments you have to make your area appealing and very easy to do business in. A very important part of that is infrastructure development. No one wants to do business in a dump. I give her a "C" on this one because of the "Ice Rink to Nowhere," though.

One of her signature accomplishments as governor was a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil production, infuriating oil companies, according to The New York Times. She accused oil companies of bribing legislators to keep taxes low and, soon after, passed a $1,200 “energy rebate” to each Alaskan from the state’s budget surplus. [1]

I am against overt tax increases on any form of business, but, if the oil companies were up to the shenanigans, I do not blame her for punishing them and then returning the revenues to the people. But, this does smack a little of "stimulus package thinking." On the other hand, it could have been a symbolic gesture for protection of the individual family as well. On this one I will give her an "A-," for thinking about the little guy and gal.

I particularly agree with the phrase I have put in quotes, it sums up how Libertarians should view Palin.

Libertarians should be "cautiously optimistic" about Palin. She has shown a dogged willingness to go to war with the worst elements of the Republican Party, but her missteps on some tax and spending issues means that libertarians should aggressively pressure a McCain-Palin administration to toe the small government line. [1]

Yup, they should view her as "cautiously optimistic," she is not a Libertarian, she is a Conservative Republican. There will be differences as well as common ground. But the idea that they have to keep pressure ratcheted up on McCain and Palin to keep the government small is silly. They will keep it small, but, it will never be small enough for the Libertarians. That is alright,though,because the core of there argument is correct just not lengths they are willing to go with it.

Finally, my overall grade for Sarah Palin is a solid "B," for being a fiscal conservative and reformer. Based on the 1(A), 2(B's) and 1(C) I gave her. In my opinion the Liberal argument is worthless, they gloss over details and are nowhere near the authority on fiscal responsibility, then again neither are the Republicans these days. She fits the old school Conservative Republican and even the Libertarian mold for a fiscal conservative and a reformer. Back in the
80's she would have been just another run of the mill typical Conservative (This is not a bad thing at all). Now she is super star because there are very few like her.

C.T.

Edit: Did a little more research into the Plain Earmark controversy and low and behold, the boys at Q&O, a Neo-Libertarian website, as usual come through with some amazing information.This is an response to an editorial that appeared in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner on (March 2, 2008). Her response (March 5, 2008) on earmarks. The article.

This year, we have requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007. Of
these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new requests. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from approximately $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million. [2]

Bam! Halved earmarks in one year. Sarah, you just got yourself an "A" on fiscal reform. Cause this kid can admit when he didn't have all the facts.

Continue reading ...