MERE HEALING

Introducing: The iLied

From Draw for Truth comes this newest innovation in technology: the Special Extended President Obama Edition.

Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

Apparently not if you're a Democrat. Read on. 

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.
-- Ronald W. Reagan.

To underscore this profound observation is a rather revealing study on political leanings and economic literacy, conducted by Zogby and detailed over my first cup of coffee in today’s WSJ.

Zogby researchers considered the 4,835 respondents’ (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. Respondents were also asked about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, researchers instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was obviously unenlightened.

In other words, nothing less than flatout guesswork gave each respondent a whopping 60% chance of getting a correct answer. A respondent really had to make an effort to screw this up. And this is where the plot thickens

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.” People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

And the results:

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

Wait a second. Not an anomaly? No, and No again. Check out the totals for all eight questions:

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

I guess we need to decide which is worse: Democrats lying to us or lying to themselves. I'm torn.

A little perspective...

Many so-called financial “experts” are comparing our present financial conditions to the Great Depression. And why shouldn’t they? With recent headlines like No Signs of Recovery in Jobs Report, Weak Retail and Price Data Dim Hopes of Quick Recovery, and countless others hourly bombarding the American people, it’s hard to keep any perspective beyond that of the media’s doom and gloom. One of the first things I learned in my Journalism 101 class many years ago is simply this: Bad news sells, and good news is no news at all. But I think if we could all take a deep breath or two and compare reality to truth, we might gain a little perspective on things.

One of the things I learned in my Freshman Econ class those same long years ago is that an economic depression is simply any economic downturn where real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) declines by more than 10 percent. Applying this method, then the Great Depression of the 1930s can be easily be seen as two separate events: an incredibly severe depression lasting from August 1929 to March 1933 where real GDP declined by almost 33 percent, a period of recovery, then another less severe depression of 1937-38 where real GDP declined by 18.2 percent. The U.S. hasn’t had anything even close to a depression since the post-WWII period. The worst recession in the last 60 years was from November 1973 to March 1975, where real GDP fell by 4.9 percent.

In fact, since 1970 the GDP has only fallen more than one percent once, and that was in 1982 when it fell 1.9 percent. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the GDP decreased by only 0.5 percent in the third quarter of 2008 – one-half of one percent. While the decrease in the fourth quarter of 2008 was significantly higher – 5.6 percent – the newspapers had a field day with headlines screaming, “U.S. GDP Shows Biggest Drop in 27 Years,” planting even more seeds of fear and doubt. As the media portray this decline as a harbinger of impending doom, I think it is only fair to remind everyone, as stated in the above paragraph, the GDP plummeted in the early 1930s by almost 33 percent.

In the four years from 1929 through 1933, about 10,000 out of the 25,000 banks in the United States disappeared (source: Business and Media Institute). Take. A. Breath. It’s not even close to anything like that today. Currently our nation supports approximately 8,400 banking institutions. The recently updated Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Failed Bank List shows a total of 75 bank closings between October 13, 2000 and April 10, 2009. But please keep in mind there was no FDIC during the Great Depression, so there were no federally insured deposits, which resulted in the chaotic and panic-driven run on the banks as depositors rushed to get their money out before the banks folded. Today, however, the FDIC guarantee is up to $250,000 per account. That means there will be no run on the banks as there was during the Great Depression.

The media have been relentless in their focus on home foreclosures. Mortgage foreclosure rates have risen. But the truth of this economic matter is that the buying frenzy between 2000 and 2005 caused home prices to more than double. But you don’t need me to remind you that incomes surely didn’t parallel this trend. At the same time, financial institutions made money more accessible to buyers by easing mortgage qualification regulations. And the simple truth is that careless lending practices can be blamed for many of the foreclosures we are seeing today. The mortgage foreclosure rate during the Great Depression was approximately 50 percent. In August of 2008, the national foreclosure rate was 4.4 percent. It may be a little higher now, but it’s not even close to what it was in the 1930s. The truth is that the U.S. has been long overdue for a major adjustment from the unsound lending practices of the last few decades. For example, illegal aliens and others who had no way to pay back their loans were receiving subprime home loans with government guarantees. That’s beyond bad business – it’s wrong… but when has ethics ever gotten in the way of business in America?

In fact, hang with me as we look a little closer at this development, because this is really the heart of the matter. A wide array of evidence has long pointed toward minorities accounting for a disproportionate number of the defaulted subprime mortgage losses that set off the economic crash. This would hardly be surprising since the government pushed hard to increase lending to minorities of marginal creditworthiness in the name of increasing minority homeownership. President Clinton, who said that he wanted his legacy to be that everyone in America would be able to afford a home, teamed up with leftist groups like BHO’s partners-in-crime at ACORN to push for more lending to minorities. According to the Federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database, minorities got half the subprime cash (for home purchases and refinancings) handed out in the boom years of 2004-2007.

Those were GWB years, but pay that no mind. There are many who suspect he was only looking to convert said minorities into loyal Republican voters. And of course some critics blame President Bush simply because he supported broadening homeownership. But President Bush’s goal was for people to own homes they could afford, not ones made accessible by reckless lenders who off-loaded their risk to Fannie and Freddie. The housing meltdown is largely a story of greed and irresponsibility made possible by government, i.e. congressional, privilege. The reality is if Democrats had granted the Bush administration the regulatory powers it sought, the housing crisis wouldn’t be nearly as severe and the economy as a whole would be better off.

For a little more perspective on things, consider this: It took Fannie and Freddie over three decades to acquire $2 trillion in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Together, they held $2.1 trillion in 2000. By 2005, the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) held $4 trillion, up a spectacular 92 percent in just five years. By 2008, they’d grown another 24 percent, to nearly $5 trillion – and between them they held almost half of all American mortgages.

The more President Bush pushed for reform, the more paper Fannie and Freddie bought. Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute and Charles Calomiris of the Columbia Business School suggest $1 trillion of this debt was subprime and “liar loans,” almost all purchased between 2005 and 2007. This build-up in funny money made it possible for banks to lend recklessly on a substantial scale.

But I digress. From 1999 to 2006, mortgage dollars (prime and subprime) for home purchases loaned to Hispanics went up a whopping 691 percent and 397 percent for blacks (but only 218 percent for Asians and about 100 percent for whites). As fate would have it, a sizable majority of defaulted dollars lost are in just four heavily Hispanic states: California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida. But I guess that’s a subject for another day.

As much fun as all this stuff is to write about, what we really need to consider is, What has all this led to?

Let’s start by considering this: The 1981-82 recession last lasted 16 months and was followed by an explosive recovery thanks largely to the Reagan tax cuts (even though they were slowly implemented). The current downturn, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, started in December 2007. Is the current recession ending? I don’t know. Haven’t got a clue. But now that we no longer have GWB to kick around, let’s take a quick look at where BHO is on things.

It will be his decision to forego deep and permanent new tax cuts, his decision to not extend the Bush tax cuts, his decision on how to spend the remaining $350 billion in TARP money, his decision to quasi-nationalize healthcare, his decision to push a cap-and-trade carbon emission program, and his decision to spend hundreds of billions on a “green” industrial policy. From all appearances, it even looks to be his decision to reunionize the American labor force, since he’s pretty much in the unions’ collective back pocket now.

If the White House was under the impression that what the capital markets need to recover was a full-out public relations exercise from Obama, Bernanke and Summers, as witnessed the other day, said White House was sadly mistaken. Case in point: After these leaders addressed the nation, the U.S.< equity market dropped over -1 percent. On a day that started badly, and then got worse, not even extensive pro-BHO TV coverage of the A-Team was able to turn things around.

Here’s the problem: The public is clamoring for an end to TARP and the bailout mania. That’s a key message coming from this week’s tea parties that have cropped up spontaneously around the country. This is evolving into a real grassroots uprising against rising taxes, TARP, and all the federal bailouts—and the trillions of dollars of deficits and debt being used for financing.

If BHO and his merry band of cohorts ignore this unrest, it will be a guaranteed one-term administration, which means it will do as much damage as it can in the next 3¹/₂ years. So the net widens. While commercial banks of all sizes are increasingly profitable and are willing and able to pay back their TARP money, the Treasury Department is now proposing to extend TARP funds to life-insurance companies, most of which are in absolutely no danger of failing. No one has proven that life-insurance companies constitute true systemic risk to the financial system. This is nothing but a financial mugging “bailout” and I use the term with a certain amount of creative license since none of these insurers has failed. And for those several that are in danger, I wonder if a simple bankruptcy proceeding might be more appropriate than additional taxpayer money.

It comes down to this: We are already on the hook for the banks, GM and Chrysler, and don’t forget we’re getting hosed for guaranteed government-backed GM warranties. And the banks themselves seem to be preparing to go to war against an administration that wants to maintain control over the big-bank sector to prevent the banks from paying off TARP. It’s as if BHO and Friends are saying, “Screw the taxpayers. We’re Democrats. This is about government control.”

Coming up next: What does all this mean for the faith-based nonprofit sector?

Cartoon by Steve Kelley, New Orleans Times-Picayune. 

Used with permission. 

Thanks, Steve!

I'm shocked -- shocked! -- I tell you.

AP: Clinton acted on concerns of husband's donors

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State appointee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found

The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton's foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raises new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband's fundraising.

And then there's this from the Chicago Tribune:

Even before she offered the Senate Foreign Relations Committee her opening, she was told by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the committee's ranking Republican, that the former president's Clinton Foundation could represent a temptation for foreign governments and other overseas entities to try to influence U.S. policies.

"The only certain way to eliminate this risk going forward is for the Clinton Foundation to forswear foreign contributions," Lugar said, arguing that restrictions and guidelines worked out between the incoming Obama administration and the foundation should be tightened.

An existing agreement with Obama's transition team represents "a beginning, not an end" to controls on the foundation's activities, Lugar said.

I know Lugar means well, but my sense is that Clinton's vote will sail through unchallenged Thursday.

Nuts.

1974 Detroit is back again... with a vengance!

It’s in the way you dress.

The way you boogie down.

The way you sign your unemployment check.

 

So why not drive the car that supports that image?

 

Now you can!

The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition

So advanced it took $100 billion and an entire Congress to design.

At your dealer in 2012.

 

Courtesy of iowahawk, of course.

2008 Notable Quotables

2008 Quote of the Year

Co-anchor Chris Matthews: “I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My — I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”

— Exchange during MSNBC’s coverage of the Virginia, Maryland and Washington D.C. primaries, February 12.

The Obamagasm Award

“Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope....Barack Hussein Obama did not win because of the color of his skin. Nor did he win in spite of it. He won because at a very dangerous moment in the life of a still young country, more people than have ever spoken before came together to try to save it. And that was a victory all its own.”

— Time’s Nancy Gibbs, Nov. 17 cover story.

Damn Those Conservatives Award

Reporter Deborah Solomon: “You helped re-elect Bush in ’04 when you gave $3 million to the Swift Boat campaign to discredit John Kerry’s Vietnam service. Do you regret your involvement?”

Businessman T. Boone Pickens: “Why would I?”

Solomon: “Because it’s such an ugly chapter in American political history.”

Pickens: “Oh, I see. Well, it was true. Everything that went into those ads was the truth.”

Solomon: “Really? I thought it was all invented.”

— From a “Q&A” exchange published in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday, August 3.

The Irrelevant Reverend Wright Award

“To see his [Jeremiah Wright’s] career completely destroyed by three 20-second soundbites, all of the work he has done, his entire legacy gone down the drain, has been absolutely devastating to me — to him, sorry....We are still a racist country....I think that so many white people who had never been inside a black church were absolutely shocked by the tone and language that they heard [from Wright]....I think it brought out a lot of latent racism.”

— Washington Post writer Sally Quinn on PBS’s Charlie Rose, April 30.

From Camelot to Obamalot Award

“Today, the audacity of hope had its rendezvous with destiny. No mere endorsement this, more like a political anointment from the Kennedys, merging ideals from two different eras....Obama is now an adopted son of Camelot. His candidacy blessed not just by the Lion of the Senate, patriarch of the clan, but by JFK’s daughter.”

— ABC’s David Wright on Nightline, Jan. 28.

Media Hero Award

“As we know this morning, there is another ground-breaking, crossroads moment. That is for Senator Hillary Clinton, who ran her campaign on her own terms. This woman, as we said, forged into determination and purpose her whole life. As someone said, ‘No thorns, no throne; no gall, no glory; no cross, no crown.’”

— ABC’s Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America, June 4, quoting a 17th century discourse about Jesus Christ.

Barbra Streisand Political IQ Award for Celebrity Vapidity

“I’d like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult. Its leader also has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats. That’s right, the Pope is coming to America....If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you ‘Pope.’ It’s like, if you can’t pay your mortgage, you’re a deadbeat. But if you can’t pay a million mortgages, you’re Bear Stearns and we bail you out. And that is who the Catholic Church is: the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia....The Church’s attitude: ‘We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,’ which is fine. Far be it for me to criticize religion.”

— Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time, April 11.

Do read the whole thing in a downloadable .pdf file, as well as MS Word, Open Office Writer, or WordPerfect versions. Or simply watch the clips.

H/T: Don Surber

What's wrong with this picture?

From the LA Times:

Obama team probe of Obama team finds no Obama team impropriety

The Barack Obama presidential transition office today finally released its own report on its own internal investigation of its own contacts with legally challenged Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. And you'll be comforted to know the Obama folks found no impropriety whatsoever by Obama folks.

So go back to wrapping holiday presents or pretending you're working at your desk and checking out Obama's important abs. All is well with the coming World of Change.

Wow, what a relief.

Obama: The College Years.

Don’t bogart that joint, my friend.
Pass it over to me.

Pictures from a contact sheet that Time Magazine could only manage to find now. No wonder these idiots are staring at the dying embers of their jobs.

Man, is that kid goofed or what?

The good news here is that, maybe, the Federal Government will get out of the War on Dope and concentrate on crack, coke, and crank. The bad news is that the Federal Government may get into the cultivation and distribution of "Official" weed. If they do, it will be the methadone of marijuana: You won't get sick. You won't get high. You'll just stay on it.

H/T: Uncle Gerard. Please go there and read the whole thing. Please. Oh, and the comments. To wit:

Boy, is he in for a surprise at his first meeting with the joint chiefs.

Imagine my surprise.

Things are heating up in the kitchen for White House hatchetman Chief of Staff-designate Rahm Emanuel. The Chicago Sun-Times earlier claimed the feds recorded 21 telephone conversations of Emanuel speaking to the governor's representatives about Obama's Senate replacement. And to put a little icing on the proverbial cake, a new report today claims he had direct conversations with the governor, some of which were likely taped.

 

Emanuel allegedly pressed the governor to appoint Valerie Jarrett shortly after the election; however, fine lines being what they are, the latest report notes there is no indication at this point he actually attempted to broker a deal in consideration of Jarrett's appointment. The Sun-Times cites “sources with knowledge of the conversations” as their source. That differs with what Obama's folks are claiming.

 

According to the S-T, "A source with the Obama camp strongly denied Emanuel spoke with the governor directly about the seat, saying Emanuel only spoke with Blagojevich once recently to say he was taking the chief of staff post.”

Okay, then. Never mind.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Illustration by Steve Breen, San Diego Union.
Used by permission.
Thanks, Steve!

From the always interesting LA Times comes this amazing headline:

Obama clears himself and staff in Blagojevich case

The president-elect says an internal review shows there were no inappropriate conversations with the Illinois governor about who would fill the vacant Senate seat. [emphasis added]

"I had no contact with the governor's office, and I had no contact with anybody in the governor's office," Obama said at a news conference called to introduce his energy and environment team. He said the review showed the Blagojevich scandal "had nothing to do with my office."

Oh, well then. I feel much better.

Release the pigeons!

Let the games begin.

An Obama aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, took back David Axelrod's remark last month that Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich had spoken recently. "What the president-elect said today is correct, David Axelrod misspoke," the aide said. -Ben Smith - Politico.com

Man, I had forgotten how much I dug this song. Lifted shamelessly from the always brilliant Vanderleun at American Dream. Treat yourself and go over to American Dream and read the lyrics along with the video. More proof that Mick Jagger is one of the greatest rock & roll songwriters ever.

Heh. Newsweek strikes again.

Mollie Ziegler has leveled the playing field with Newsweek by taking alleged journalist Lisa Miller to the proverbial woodshed for a well-deserved come-uppance. But far be it from me to spoil things. First, read Miller’s breathtakingly witless trashing of the Church here. Then continue with what MZ has to say:

It is no exaggeration to say the piece was an embarrassment. My analysis of the belly flop is here. On a radio show yesterday, the host asked me whether the piece was more offensive to my sensibilities as a journalist or a Christian. I went with “journalist” since the piece wasn’t anywhere legitimate enough, theologically speaking, to be considered seriously. As a journalist, it violated almost every rule in the book. It failed to accurately represent the viewpoint being scrutinized. It was riddled with errors. It was driven by emotion. More than a few journalists — one at a competing weekly news magazine — wrote to me yesterday asking, “Where was her editor?"

Indeed. In fact, she saves her strongest criticism to answer that very question. It needs to be said here that Newsweek editor Jon Meacham is no slouch, having been widely published on religious matters, ranging from cover stories to American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation , a well-written historical portrait of religion and American politics. Indeed, MZ's post carries just a note of surprised disappointment that Meacham could forsake theological (not to say journalistic, as well) integrity for the sake of socio-political expediency:

A good editor helps shape the story, makes sure it’s well researched and reported, notices blatant mistakes or errors in logic or of bias. Well, I have bad news. Based on his editor’s note, Meacham completely failed Miller and her readers. His note introduces and praises the piece.

Here’s a sample:

No matter what one thinks about gay rights — for, against or somewhere in between — this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.

Yes, that’s right. The editor of Newsweek thinks that argument from the Bible is “the worst kind of fundamentalism.” Can you believe that? Can that be serious? Proper exegesis is difficult and requires a great deal of understanding of languages, types of writing styles, history and tradition — but determining what the Bible teaches is very serious work. Lutherans such as myself believe that Scripture is the only divine source and the norm for our teachings. That may be shocking to a liberal Episcopalian but to call such exegesis intellectually bankrupt is ignorant. And Biblical exegesis sort of defines the “great Judeo-Christian tradition.” Perhaps Meacham’s focus on civil religion and American history has made him blind to this fact.

The lady is just getting warmed up. Do read the whole thing. And be sure to read the comments, as well.

Irony is not dead.

It's only wounded.

To wit: This little item concerning the recently released University of Toronto (UT) study which determined that gay men who don't feel attractive are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors, which might explain -- wait for it -- why gay and bisexual men in Massachusetts continue to be hard hit by AIDS.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health released figures last Sunday revealing that the state has had less than stellar success battling AIDS among gay and bisexual men than it has in combating the disease among drug users and heterosexual men and women. In other words, the burden of HIV/AIDS remains squarely on the shoulders of gay/bisexual men and other men who have sex with men. Still. Just as it always has.

According to the report's math, although gay and bisexual men only make up less than 10 percent of the population in MA, they accounted for half of the new HIV infections between 2004 and 2006.

The UT study was among the first such study (they claim) to examine the link between sex and mental health. To my great surprise, it found that gay men who are physically less attractive are stigmatized, avoided and often rejected, which then can lead to depression, anxiety and alcohol abuse. [Editor's note: Jeez, I could have told them that 40 years ago.]

Adam Isaiah Green, assistant professor of sociology at UT, interviewed dozens (!!) of gay men in Toronto to find out 1) what qualities made some men more sexually desirable than others and 2) what the mental and physical health consequences of being undesirable might be.

Said Green in a statement to the fawning media, "I found that young, white, middle-class men are considered much more sexually desirable than men who are racial minorities, over 40 and poor. I also learned that for gay men, being considered sexually undesirable can have serious health consequences ranging from psychological issues to risky sexual behavior."

Okay, a show of hands please. How many of us are hearing that shocking bit of federally funded insight for the very first time? Uh-huh. That's what I thought.

Green found that undesirable gay men often fail to engage in a safe-sex discussion and, in some cases, fail to use a condom when having sex with a more attractive partner.

MDPH officials recommended supplying free condoms to gay and bisexual men, including those in high school, to combat HIV and AIDS. [emphasis added]

Does two make a trend?

What is the deal with aides to Senate Democrats?

A senior aide to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was fired from his post last week after he was charged with distributing and receiving child pornography.

Jeffrey P. Rosato, an aide to Boxer and a senior policy adviser on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was arrested last Friday, the same day he was fired from Boxer's office, and charged with one count each of receipt and distribution of child pornography. He appeared in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on Wednesday and was released on his own recognizance, but he is forbidden to have access to children or computers.

According to an FBI affidavit, an unnamed person "distributed more than 600 files containing graphic images and movies of child pornography to an undercover detective that [the person] believed was a 13-year-old boy" over the course of more than 15 online chats during a three-week period in January. In that person's computer, the FBI found information suggesting the person had exchanged pornography with Rosato.

Investigators also found pornographic photos and movies of children on Rosato's laptop computer during a Nov. 4 search of his Alexandria home, according to the affidavit. "Many of the images and videos depict prepubescent boys engaged in sexual acts, it said.

You might not recall reading/hearing about this since it was virtually ignored by the MSM -- imagine my surprise -- but I think it's worth revisiting. Remember just last month when James Michael McHaney, now a former Senate aide to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), was sentenced to three years in prison on a federal charge of possession of child pornography? Sure you do.

Well, if you don't remember, or if you never knew it to begin with, I guess we can tip our hats to the MSM once again for their on-the-spot coverage of this item. Looks like their  coverage extended to single paragraph items using the misleading AP account labeling McHaney a former aide [technically true] despite the conveniently overlooked detail he was working in Sen. Cantwell's office when he was busted last year.

And isn't it interesting how Rosato was busted a week ago and only now struggling it's way to the surface.

What the...?

“Barack Obama won the election because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens.” — New York Times, The Next President.

H/T: Anchoress.

Obama's birth certificate.

I’m just so glad we got this nonsense straightened out once and for all.

Now be honest.

You really want this guy a heartbeat away from the Oval Office?

The downside of BHO's energy plan.

Electricity prices will skyrocket and coal power plants in Indiana, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado will be shut down.

"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

Other than that, it should work just fine.

"So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted."

Yep. Sounds like "change" to me, all right.

Trick or treat.

David Harsanyi sums up Obamanomics rather neatly in today's Denver Post:

Obama laughs off the charge of socialist behavior — and to be fair, socialism isn’t the precise term to affix to his ideas. It’s more like Robin Hood economics. On a recent campaign stop, Obama joked that, by the end of the week, McCain would be accusing him “of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

A funny line. But, of course, Obama’s lofty intellect must comprehend the fundamental difference between sharing your G.I. Joe with a friend and having a bully snatch your G.I. Joe for the collective, prepubescent good. It’s the difference between coercion and free association and trade. In practical terms, it’s the difference between government cheese and a meal at Ruth’s Chris.

Now, I’m not suggesting Obama intends to transform this nation into 1950s-era Soviet tyranny or that he will possess the power to do so. I’m suggesting Obama is praising and mainstreaming an economic philosophy that has failed to produce a scintilla of fairness or prosperity anywhere on Earth. Ever.

. . .

Conservatives have been accusing liberals of being socialists since, I don’t know, since liberals have been accusing conservatives of being fascists.

But when a candidate explicitly endorses a collectivist policy . . . well, words still have meaning, don’t they?

There's more. Read the whole thing. Then check out Protein Wisdom's lengthy and excellent continuation of Harsanyi's line of reasoning. It gets even better.

Go figure.

Slate—irony of ironies—rather broadly hints that Obama is lying about his inability to identify small donors:

Barack Obama refuses to release the names of the 2 million-plus people who have given his campaign less than $200. According to campaign officials, it would be too difficult and time-consuming to extract this information from its database.

So how come we were able to do it in a couple hours? Not literally—we don't have access to the campaign's list of donors—but we created a database of similar size and format in a Web-ready file and posted it online . . . But before we get into the technical details (though, if you're with the Obama campaign and want to skip ahead, please do), it's worth dwelling on the reasons for the Obama campaign's reluctance to disclose this information. It can't be legal: No law prevents Obama from releasing these names.

You know, a more suspicious mind might be inclined to believe the Obama campaign is concealing something.