Ed Schultz Accuses FOX Of Going Easy On Republicans - While He Accepts $200K From Unions

MSNBC blowhard Ed Schultz is not known for his civility or reasoned discourse, fo rgood reasons. His usual demeanor is that of an angry hyena whose prey just escaped - and that's an insult to hyenas.

One of Ed Schulz's common themes is the evil of FOX news, just possibly because their audience makes his look positively miniscule. In the above clip, Ed accuses FOX of going easy on Republicans - namely Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in this case - because Fox's parent NewsCorp actually had the temerity to exercise their First Amendment rights and make a donation to the Republican Governors Association.

Funny thing about that. It appears that Mr. Ed got paid almost $200,000 in 2011 from various union sources, most notably the Communications Workers of America. For “representational activities" according to the union.

Now, Mr. Ed's people claim he gave all that money to charity, and he'd never lie, now would he?
In any case, I have no objection to his making hay by legal means while the sun shines..after all, it may not shine forever.

But his hypocrisy in ranting about FOX and Scott Walker for essentially doing the same thing is the sort of disgusting hypocrisy and double standards lefties like Mr. Ed seem to immerse themselves in as almost a compulsive habit.

Pot, meet kettle.

Ed Schultz Accuses FOX Of Going Easy On Republicans - While He Accepts $200K From Unions

MSNBC blowhard Ed Schultz is not known for his civility or reasoned discourse, fo rgood reasons. His usual demeanor is that of an angry hyena whose prey just escaped - and that's an insult to hyenas.

One of Ed Schulz's common themes is the evil of FOX news, just possibly because their audience makes his look positively miniscule. In the above clip, Ed accuses FOX of going easy on Republicans - namely Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in this case - because Fox's parent NewsCorp actually had the temerity to exercise their First Amendment rights and make a donation to the Republican Governors Association.

Funny thing about that. It appears that Mr. Ed got paid almost $200,000 in 2011 from various union sources, most notably the Communications Workers of America. For “representational activities" according to the union.

Now, Mr. Ed's people claim he gave all that money to charity, and he'd never lie, now would he?
In any case, I have no objection to his making hay by legal means while the sun shines..after all, it may not shine forever.

But his hypocrisy in ranting about FOX and Scott Walker for essentially doing the same thing is the sort of disgusting hypocrisy and double standards lefties like Mr. Ed seem to immerse themselves in as almost a compulsive habit.

Pot, meet kettle.

Obama's Energy Speech - Lie After Lie After Lie

Someone obviously whispered in our Dear Leader's ear that gas prices have skyrocketed, and it wasn't polling well. So he decided to address the peons in front of a friendly crowd at th eUniversity of Miami, Florida, telling them in effect 'hey, it's not my fault, it's the greedy oil companies so stop whining and go buy a Volt or something.'

The speech was so ruthlessly cynical and lacking in truth that it would take more space than it's worth to fully debunk it, but there are several points worth underlining:


Now, some politicians they see this as a political opportunity. I know you’re shocked by that. (Laughter.) Last week, the lead story in one newspaper said, “Gasoline prices are on the rise and Republicans are licking their chops.” That’s a quote. That was the lead. "Licking their chops." Only in politics do people root for bad news, do they greet bad news so enthusiastically. You pay more; they’re licking their chops. You can bet that since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their 3-point plan for $2 gas. And I’ll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling.

You know there are no quick fixes to this problem. You know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.

That seems to be a key phrase for this president 'we can't drill our way to lower gas prices.'

An honest response would be, 'how the hell would you know, sir'?

One of the first things President Obama did when he became president was to cancel leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah, and he followed up with cancellation in in Virginia, in the Gulf and suspended them in Colorado and Montana. In 2010, he doubled down with new, stringent regulations to make future leasing on federal land for energy exploration and drilling far more difficult.

He issued not one but two executive orders halting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, one of which defied a court order. And his administration has been refusing to issue any new permits ever since. The Department of Energy's own figures says that Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011.

This president is also blocking access to an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, another 10 billion barrels estimated in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast, and another 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. This is th esame president who later on inhis speech said 'we're focused on production'!

The amount of oil that we drill at home doesn’t set the price of gas by itself. The oil market is global; oil is bought and sold in a world market. And just like last year, the single biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to spike right now is instability in the Middle East -– this time around Iran. When uncertainty increases, speculative trading on Wall Street increases, and that drives prices up even more.

If we’re going to take control of our energy future and can start avoiding these annual gas price spikes that happen every year — when the economy starts getting better, world demand starts increasing, turmoil in the Middle East or some other parts of the world — if we’re going to avoid being at the mercy of these world events, we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.

The president blamed high prices several times on turmoil in the Middle East rather than his own mismanagement and incompetence. And mentioned global demand as a factor,particularly in China.


Just a little while ago, there was a bill in Congress to approve the Keystone Pipeline, a project that would have not only provided thousands of badly needed construction jobs but lowered the cost of transporting oil to American refineries - and not from some hot spot in the Middle East, but from Canada. That project was killed by the president with the assistance of his fellow Democrats in the Senate....and the fed up Canadians are routing that oil to Vancouver via an already existing Canadian pipeline and have sold those oil contracts to China.

President Obama blamed this fiasco on - wait for it - Republicans, simply because they wanted to end the dithering and give the Canadians some indication we were serious about buying their oil. hey, not only did President Obama see to it that we lost out on 900,000 barrels a day of badly needed oil to China, he insulted one of our closest allies in the bargain at the same time. Focused on production!

Another interesting factoid - remember the President gifting over a billion of your tax dollars to Brazil to finance their oil exploration because, as he told them 'we want to be your best customers' ? Instead oil financing oil exploration here?

The United States consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves. That means we can’t just rely on fossil fuels from the last century. We can’t just allow ourselves to be held hostage by the ups and downs of the world oil market. We have to keep developing new sources of energy. We have to keep developing new technology that helps us use less energy. We have to keep relying on the American know-how and ingenuity that comes from places like the University of Miami. That’s our future. And that’s exactly the path we’ve been taking these last three years.

That 2% figure is demonstrably false on the face of it, since believe it or not, America is one of top five oil exporters. But even without going there, this president,who claims we're running out of oil and that he's focused on an all-of-the above strategy curiously leaves out two major oil sources here at home.

The first is shale oil, which the administration has fought tooth and nail but is providing quite a few jobs in the Dakotas and other Rocky Mountain states. The process of fracking, which the president has also tried to restrict as much as possible on faux environmental grounds is making headlines in a great many places, but getting hardly any support...certainly nothing like the bogus 'green energy' companies like Solyndra run by well-connected insiders and Obama campaign donors that have sucked up billions of taxpayer dollars and been an abysmal failure.

Another energy resource that has been totally ignored because of the Obama Administration's focus on cap n' tax, subsidizing the UAW friendly bailout of GM and similar pursuits is the gasification of coal, which I've mentioned a few times of these pages.

Gasification is a proven, clean technology that takes coal and reprocesses it into refinable oil and petroleum products. It's how Hitler kept the Panzers running after the British fleet cut off much of Germany's access to Middle East and Asian oil.

The United States is justifiably called the Saudi Arabia of goal, and we have ample supplies of it. Back in the 1970's, when our Arab friends put an embargo on oil shipments to America and oil was flirting with $100 per barrel, President Carter performed one of the few intelligent acts of his administration and authorized the development of American synthetic fuel made by this process, which could be done then for about half of what the Arabs were asking for their crude.

The project worked quite well for a few tears, but was scrapped when crude prices from the Middle East crashed in response and made it less economical.

Gasification is still a cheap source of oil, the technology has improved considerably since the 1970's, we have massive coal deposits and it could still produce oil for about half what Brent crude is going for on the spot markets. So why isn't Mr. 'all-of-the above strategy' jumping on this?

Here's why. First of all, President Obama, quite frankly, knows very little about energy but he does know that a lot of his base hates the coal and oil industry, because that's what Democrats have told them for years without letting them in on how ample energy affects things like food prices, the cost of goods and services and yes,what they pay at the pump. They've even got these well-trained lemmings buying electric and hybrid cars because they're not thinking about what the electric power plants run on that generate that 'non-fossil fuels' energy for that spiffy new Prius or not so spiffy GM Volt.

The oil companies make a convenient target, as the president demonstrates here:

Right now, four billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. Four billion dollars. These are the same oil companies that have been making record profits off the money you spend at the pump. And now they deserve another four billion dollars from us?

It’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And every politician who’s been fighting to keep these subsidies in place should explain to the American people why the oil industry needs more of their money. Especially at a time like this.

What the president is talking about is what the oil companies write off as R&D for exploration and for depreciation and depleting of existing equipment and resources, just like every other corporation. Make special rules that apply just to those 'greedy oil companies' and watch how research and development and the exploration for new resources dries up.

Which, by the way, is exactly what the president and other Big Government apparatchniks want.

They absolutely loves the high taxes generated by super-sized prices at the pump, which gives them huge sums to spend on pet projects and rewarding loyal constituencies. Those greedy, profiteering oil companies make, on average, about a 9% profit on a gallon of gas in exchange for finding, pumping, shipping, refining and retailing it. In California, the government's cut on a gallon of gasoline at today's prices simply for being there ranges from a 17% 'profit' per gallon in outlying areas to 22% in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, depending on sales taxes and the actual retail price involved.

President Obama is hoping that retailing the Big Lie on energy is going to spin the issue to make high gas prices the fault of the Republicans in Congress, who won't OK fresh giveaways of taxpayer dollars to his green energy cronies.

It shows exactly how much this president really cares about the 'little people', doesn't it?

Obama's Energy Speech - Lie After Lie After Lie

Someone obviously whispered in our Dear Leader's ear that gas prices have skyrocketed, and it wasn't polling well. So he decided to address the peons in front of a friendly crowd at th eUniversity of Miami, Florida, telling them in effect 'hey, it's not my fault, it's the greedy oil companies so stop whining and go buy a Volt or something.'

The speech was so ruthlessly cynical and lacking in truth that it would take more space than it's worth to fully debunk it, but there are several points worth underlining:


Now, some politicians they see this as a political opportunity. I know you’re shocked by that. (Laughter.) Last week, the lead story in one newspaper said, “Gasoline prices are on the rise and Republicans are licking their chops.” That’s a quote. That was the lead. "Licking their chops." Only in politics do people root for bad news, do they greet bad news so enthusiastically. You pay more; they’re licking their chops. You can bet that since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their 3-point plan for $2 gas. And I’ll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling.

You know there are no quick fixes to this problem. You know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.

That seems to be a key phrase for this president 'we can't drill our way to lower gas prices.'

An honest response would be, 'how the hell would you know, sir'?

One of the first things President Obama did when he became president was to cancel leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah, and he followed up with cancellation in in Virginia, in the Gulf and suspended them in Colorado and Montana. In 2010, he doubled down with new, stringent regulations to make future leasing on federal land for energy exploration and drilling far more difficult.

He issued not one but two executive orders halting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, one of which defied a court order. And his administration has been refusing to issue any new permits ever since. The Department of Energy's own figures says that Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011.

This president is also blocking access to an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, another 10 billion barrels estimated in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast, and another 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. This is th esame president who later on inhis speech said 'we're focused on production'!

The amount of oil that we drill at home doesn’t set the price of gas by itself. The oil market is global; oil is bought and sold in a world market. And just like last year, the single biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to spike right now is instability in the Middle East -– this time around Iran. When uncertainty increases, speculative trading on Wall Street increases, and that drives prices up even more.

If we’re going to take control of our energy future and can start avoiding these annual gas price spikes that happen every year — when the economy starts getting better, world demand starts increasing, turmoil in the Middle East or some other parts of the world — if we’re going to avoid being at the mercy of these world events, we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.

The president blamed high prices several times on turmoil in the Middle East rather than his own mismanagement and incompetence. And mentioned global demand as a factor,particularly in China.


Just a little while ago, there was a bill in Congress to approve the Keystone Pipeline, a project that would have not only provided thousands of badly needed construction jobs but lowered the cost of transporting oil to American refineries - and not from some hot spot in the Middle East, but from Canada. That project was killed by the president with the assistance of his fellow Democrats in the Senate....and the fed up Canadians are routing that oil to Vancouver via an already existing Canadian pipeline and have sold those oil contracts to China.

President Obama blamed this fiasco on - wait for it - Republicans, simply because they wanted to end the dithering and give the Canadians some indication we were serious about buying their oil. hey, not only did President Obama see to it that we lost out on 900,000 barrels a day of badly needed oil to China, he insulted one of our closest allies in the bargain at the same time. Focused on production!

Another interesting factoid - remember the President gifting over a billion of your tax dollars to Brazil to finance their oil exploration because, as he told them 'we want to be your best customers' ? Instead oil financing oil exploration here?

The United States consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves. That means we can’t just rely on fossil fuels from the last century. We can’t just allow ourselves to be held hostage by the ups and downs of the world oil market. We have to keep developing new sources of energy. We have to keep developing new technology that helps us use less energy. We have to keep relying on the American know-how and ingenuity that comes from places like the University of Miami. That’s our future. And that’s exactly the path we’ve been taking these last three years.

That 2% figure is demonstrably false on the face of it, since believe it or not, America is one of top five oil exporters. But even without going there, this president,who claims we're running out of oil and that he's focused on an all-of-the above strategy curiously leaves out two major oil sources here at home.

The first is shale oil, which the administration has fought tooth and nail but is providing quite a few jobs in the Dakotas and other Rocky Mountain states. The process of fracking, which the president has also tried to restrict as much as possible on faux environmental grounds is making headlines in a great many places, but getting hardly any support...certainly nothing like the bogus 'green energy' companies like Solyndra run by well-connected insiders and Obama campaign donors that have sucked up billions of taxpayer dollars and been an abysmal failure.

Another energy resource that has been totally ignored because of the Obama Administration's focus on cap n' tax, subsidizing the UAW friendly bailout of GM and similar pursuits is the gasification of coal, which I've mentioned a few times of these pages.

Gasification is a proven, clean technology that takes coal and reprocesses it into refinable oil and petroleum products. It's how Hitler kept the Panzers running after the British fleet cut off much of Germany's access to Middle East and Asian oil.

The United States is justifiably called the Saudi Arabia of goal, and we have ample supplies of it. Back in the 1970's, when our Arab friends put an embargo on oil shipments to America and oil was flirting with $100 per barrel, President Carter performed one of the few intelligent acts of his administration and authorized the development of American synthetic fuel made by this process, which could be done then for about half of what the Arabs were asking for their crude.

The project worked quite well for a few tears, but was scrapped when crude prices from the Middle East crashed in response and made it less economical.

Gasification is still a cheap source of oil, the technology has improved considerably since the 1970's, we have massive coal deposits and it could still produce oil for about half what Brent crude is going for on the spot markets. So why isn't Mr. 'all-of-the above strategy' jumping on this?

Here's why. First of all, President Obama, quite frankly, knows very little about energy but he does know that a lot of his base hates the coal and oil industry, because that's what Democrats have told them for years without letting them in on how ample energy affects things like food prices, the cost of goods and services and yes,what they pay at the pump. They've even got these well-trained lemmings buying electric and hybrid cars because they're not thinking about what the electric power plants run on that generate that 'non-fossil fuels' energy for that spiffy new Prius or not so spiffy GM Volt.

The oil companies make a convenient target, as the president demonstrates here:

Right now, four billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. Four billion dollars. These are the same oil companies that have been making record profits off the money you spend at the pump. And now they deserve another four billion dollars from us?

It’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And every politician who’s been fighting to keep these subsidies in place should explain to the American people why the oil industry needs more of their money. Especially at a time like this.

What the president is talking about is what the oil companies write off as R&D for exploration and for depreciation and depleting of existing equipment and resources, just like every other corporation. Make special rules that apply just to those 'greedy oil companies' and watch how research and development and the exploration for new resources dries up.

Which, by the way, is exactly what the president and other Big Government apparatchniks want.

They absolutely loves the high taxes generated by super-sized prices at the pump, which gives them huge sums to spend on pet projects and rewarding loyal constituencies. Those greedy, profiteering oil companies make, on average, about a 9% profit on a gallon of gas in exchange for finding, pumping, shipping, refining and retailing it. In California, the government's cut on a gallon of gasoline at today's prices simply for being there ranges from a 17% 'profit' per gallon in outlying areas to 22% in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, depending on sales taxes and the actual retail price involved.

President Obama is hoping that retailing the Big Lie on energy is going to spin the issue to make high gas prices the fault of the Republicans in Congress, who won't OK fresh giveaways of taxpayer dollars to his green energy cronies.

It shows exactly how much this president really cares about the 'little people', doesn't it?

The New WAPO/ABC Poll - Gaming The Numbers For Obama

There a brand spanking new poll out today by the Washington Post and ABC News supposedly showing President Obama topping GOP front runner Mitt Romney nationally.

It claims that 55% of the respondents dislike what they're hearing from the GOP candidates in general, that 57% approved of what they heard from President Obama's State of the Union address and that he tops Romney in a general election matchup, 51% to 47%.

Iwould bet that these particular poll rating are absolutely accurate - based on whom the WAPO/ABC pollsters asked.

You see, this is the second time the WAPO/ABC news poll has neglected to release figures on the Democrat/Republican/Independent percentages in its report...and I'd bet that going to be the way things go with this particular poll from now on until election day.

You might remember an occasion last December when we examined the mechanics of a WAPO/ABC poll that oversampled Democrats and was weighted as much as 50% to 60% weighted towards the Left end of the spectrum. And there was this one, with the same pollsters that only sampled 22% Republicans to get the desired results.

At least on those occasions, someone who could read between the lines and look at the mechanics could see how badly the polls were skewed. But the WAPO/ABC pollsters have learned,and now they aren't even releasing any figures on the affiliation whom they polled.And to skew it even more, they merely polled 1,000 adults, rather than likely voters, something utterly ridiculous for primary season. For all we know, they could have polled 700 hardcore SEIU members and talked to the other 300 at a supermarket parking lot.

Based on their previous track record, I'd say that this particular WAPO/ABC poll is worth about as much as what's pictured above. Less in fact, because at least the product above has value as manure.

There's no question that President Obama's overall ratings probably are up a bit because of the GOP infighting, the partisan press coverage and the highly manipulated economic data. I wouldn't count on the third factor lasting until November.

The New WAPO/ABC Poll - Gaming The Numbers For Obama

There a brand spanking new poll out today by the Washington Post and ABC News supposedly showing President Obama topping GOP front runner Mitt Romney nationally.

It claims that 55% of the respondents dislike what they're hearing from the GOP candidates in general, that 57% approved of what they heard from President Obama's State of the Union address and that he tops Romney in a general election matchup, 51% to 47%.

Iwould bet that these particular poll rating are absolutely accurate - based on whom the WAPO/ABC pollsters asked.

You see, this is the second time the WAPO/ABC news poll has neglected to release figures on the Democrat/Republican/Independent percentages in its report...and I'd bet that going to be the way things go with this particular poll from now on until election day.

You might remember an occasion last December when we examined the mechanics of a WAPO/ABC poll that oversampled Democrats and was weighted as much as 50% to 60% weighted towards the Left end of the spectrum. And there was this one, with the same pollsters that only sampled 22% Republicans to get the desired results.

At least on those occasions, someone who could read between the lines and look at the mechanics could see how badly the polls were skewed. But the WAPO/ABC pollsters have learned,and now they aren't even releasing any figures on the affiliation whom they polled.And to skew it even more, they merely polled 1,000 adults, rather than likely voters, something utterly ridiculous for primary season. For all we know, they could have polled 700 hardcore SEIU members and talked to the other 300 at a supermarket parking lot.

Based on their previous track record, I'd say that this particular WAPO/ABC poll is worth about as much as what's pictured above. Less in fact, because at least the product above has value as manure.

There's no question that President Obama's overall ratings probably are up a bit because of the GOP infighting, the partisan press coverage and the highly manipulated economic data. I wouldn't count on the third factor lasting until November.

Obama Administration's Hidden Fee On Home Loans A Secret Tax Increase

President Obama has trumpeted the temporary payroll tax cut as his major victory for middle class Americans. Unfortunately, he isn't telling you about the massive screwing over homeowners are getting to pay for a few hundred dollars in savings.

Hidden in the bill that the president signed that came down from the Senate is a provision that adds a minimum monthly fee of one tenth of one percent per month for every $200,000 of the loan amount on every purchase or refinance - for the life of the loan.

For those of you whom are math challenged, for a $300,000 purchase or refinance loan, that amounts to $37.50 added on to your monthly payments...every year you have your loan:

The new fee is a minimum of one-tenth of 1 percent on Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed loans, and is likely to go much higher.

It will be imposed for the next 10 years on most mortgages and refinancings and it lasts for the life of the loan.

For every $200,000, it amounts to an extra $15 dollars a month.

It's bad news for Patty Anderson, who's buying a home in Virginia.

Anderson will save a couple hundred dollars from having her payroll tax cut extended but her mortgage broker told her the new fee would cost her almost $9,500.

"I was absolutely startled that it would add up to that much," she said.

The $35.7 billion collected in fees won't go into the Social Security fund to replace the lost payroll tax. It goes to the general treasury where Congress can spend it however they please.

Bill Burnett, Anderson's broker and president of the Virginia Association of Mortgage Brokers, said you won't see Congress' new charge in the paperwork, but it's there.

"It's actually built into this [interest] rate. You would never see the fee as a cost to you," he said. {...}

One congressman, Florida Republican Allen West, said he tried to blow the whistle on the whole thing before Christmas.

"I read the legislation and raised the flag. Unfortunately nobody paid attention to what I was saying at the time," he said, calling the fee a backdoor tax increase on the middle class.

"It absolutely is because you're talking about the homeowners - when you're talking about the people that are gonna be using the Fannie Mae, the Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises - it is absolutely a tax increase on them."

An Obama administration official defended the mortgage fee, calling it "modest." She said it's "unlikely to negatively affect borrowers" because increases "will be phased in over the next two years." And it will "help bring private capital back into the mortgage market, which [is] good for borrowers over the long term."

Except it isn't going into 'private capital' but right into Congress's general fund.Hey,what one more lie at this point?

$9,500 in new taxes in exchange for a couple of hundred dollars in tax relief for two months. This is what President Obama and the Democrats mean by 'new revenues'. And it's exactly what the GOP presidential candidates ought to be screaming bloody murder about.

Obama Administration's Hidden Fee On Home Loans A Secret Tax Increase

President Obama has trumpeted the temporary payroll tax cut as his major victory for middle class Americans. Unfortunately, he isn't telling you about the massive screwing over homeowners are getting to pay for a few hundred dollars in savings.

Hidden in the bill that the president signed that came down from the Senate is a provision that adds a minimum monthly fee of one tenth of one percent per month for every $200,000 of the loan amount on every purchase or refinance - for the life of the loan.

For those of you whom are math challenged, for a $300,000 purchase or refinance loan, that amounts to $37.50 added on to your monthly payments...every year you have your loan:

The new fee is a minimum of one-tenth of 1 percent on Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed loans, and is likely to go much higher.

It will be imposed for the next 10 years on most mortgages and refinancings and it lasts for the life of the loan.

For every $200,000, it amounts to an extra $15 dollars a month.

It's bad news for Patty Anderson, who's buying a home in Virginia.

Anderson will save a couple hundred dollars from having her payroll tax cut extended but her mortgage broker told her the new fee would cost her almost $9,500.

"I was absolutely startled that it would add up to that much," she said.

The $35.7 billion collected in fees won't go into the Social Security fund to replace the lost payroll tax. It goes to the general treasury where Congress can spend it however they please.

Bill Burnett, Anderson's broker and president of the Virginia Association of Mortgage Brokers, said you won't see Congress' new charge in the paperwork, but it's there.

"It's actually built into this [interest] rate. You would never see the fee as a cost to you," he said. {...}

One congressman, Florida Republican Allen West, said he tried to blow the whistle on the whole thing before Christmas.

"I read the legislation and raised the flag. Unfortunately nobody paid attention to what I was saying at the time," he said, calling the fee a backdoor tax increase on the middle class.

"It absolutely is because you're talking about the homeowners - when you're talking about the people that are gonna be using the Fannie Mae, the Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises - it is absolutely a tax increase on them."

An Obama administration official defended the mortgage fee, calling it "modest." She said it's "unlikely to negatively affect borrowers" because increases "will be phased in over the next two years." And it will "help bring private capital back into the mortgage market, which [is] good for borrowers over the long term."

Except it isn't going into 'private capital' but right into Congress's general fund.Hey,what one more lie at this point?

$9,500 in new taxes in exchange for a couple of hundred dollars in tax relief for two months. This is what President Obama and the Democrats mean by 'new revenues'. And it's exactly what the GOP presidential candidates ought to be screaming bloody murder about.

CBC Chairman Emanuel Cleaver: 'Hey, We're Racists! What Of It?'

That's not exactly verbatim, but it's essentially what the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus said:

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver — the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus – told The Daily Caller that African Americans won’t “march on the White House” over the high unemployment rate in the black community because President Barack Obama is black.

Following his appearance at Republican Rep. Allen West’s Black Conservative Forum, Cleaver elaborated on his past comments about Obama’s image in the African American community, saying, “The point I was making is that black people hold the president in such high esteem, that they would not dare march on the White House even though unemployment is at 15 percent and higher and if there was a white president we would do that because we’ve had white presidents since George Washington.”

Cleaver continued, “The point was that if we had anybody else in the White House, with this level of unemployment, that you know, you would see a lot more African Americans, African American organizations and retro organizations speaking out against it. But because he is revered, you know, he gets I guess the benefit of, you know, understanding that the situation was terrible when he came in. So, we’re not doing that.”

The Missouri Democrat told The DC that he personally resisted a proposed Annual Legislative Conference (ALC) “prayer” demonstration at the White House.

“I was resistant to a group of individuals who wanted to lock arms, surround the White House, with several thousand people during the ALC this past October and pray. I resisted it because I thought if we did that it would be interpreted as some kind of assault on the president, which I was not willing to launch,” he said.

So...it's OK to trash President Bush simply because he's white, but President Obama is sacrosanct just because he's black for even worse performance.

Does anyone have any doubt that if whites used exactly the same criteria in criticizing President Obama while giving a white president a pass Rep. Cleaver and his friends would be foaming at the mouth and screaming "Racism" ?

You see, Racism really is colorblind, as Dr, King so clearly saw.

It's an ugly cancer no matter who wears the sheet.

CBC Chairman Emanuel Cleaver: 'Hey, We're Racists! What Of It?'

That's not exactly verbatim, but it's essentially what the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus said:

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver — the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus – told The Daily Caller that African Americans won’t “march on the White House” over the high unemployment rate in the black community because President Barack Obama is black.

Following his appearance at Republican Rep. Allen West’s Black Conservative Forum, Cleaver elaborated on his past comments about Obama’s image in the African American community, saying, “The point I was making is that black people hold the president in such high esteem, that they would not dare march on the White House even though unemployment is at 15 percent and higher and if there was a white president we would do that because we’ve had white presidents since George Washington.”

Cleaver continued, “The point was that if we had anybody else in the White House, with this level of unemployment, that you know, you would see a lot more African Americans, African American organizations and retro organizations speaking out against it. But because he is revered, you know, he gets I guess the benefit of, you know, understanding that the situation was terrible when he came in. So, we’re not doing that.”

The Missouri Democrat told The DC that he personally resisted a proposed Annual Legislative Conference (ALC) “prayer” demonstration at the White House.

“I was resistant to a group of individuals who wanted to lock arms, surround the White House, with several thousand people during the ALC this past October and pray. I resisted it because I thought if we did that it would be interpreted as some kind of assault on the president, which I was not willing to launch,” he said.

So...it's OK to trash President Bush simply because he's white, but President Obama is sacrosanct just because he's black for even worse performance.

Does anyone have any doubt that if whites used exactly the same criteria in criticizing President Obama while giving a white president a pass Rep. Cleaver and his friends would be foaming at the mouth and screaming "Racism" ?

You see, Racism really is colorblind, as Dr, King so clearly saw.

It's an ugly cancer no matter who wears the sheet.

UK's Global Warming Office New Figures: No Warming in the Past 15 Years

Whoopsie:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Remember 'the science is settled'?

What I'd like to know now is how taxpayers in the developed world go about reclaiming the billions of taxpayer dollars that were and still are literally being stolen from the public purse in the name of this scam.

Brinks, The Great Train Robbery and even Bernie Madoff aren't even in the same league.

UK's Global Warming Office New Figures: No Warming in the Past 15 Years

Whoopsie:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Remember 'the science is settled'?

What I'd like to know now is how taxpayers in the developed world go about reclaiming the billions of taxpayer dollars that were and still are literally being stolen from the public purse in the name of this scam.

Brinks, The Great Train Robbery and even Bernie Madoff aren't even in the same league.

AG Holder Caught In Another Fast And Furious Lie

Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice did a document dump on Operation Fast and Furious to congressional officials late Friday night. One part of this was a series of emails showing Holder was informed of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder on the day it happened – December 15, 2010 – and that he was informed the weapons used to kill Terry were from Fast and Furious on the same day.

Let me reiterate. Eric Holder didn't find out about gunwalking and Fast and Furious "a few weeks" before Congress called him in as he originally said (later amended to "a few months") before his May 2011 testimony.He knew all about it the very same day:

An email from one official, whose name has been redacted from the document, to now-former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke reads: “On December 14, 2010, a BORTAC agent working in the Nogales, AZ AOR was shot. The agent was conducting Border Patrol operations 18 miles north of the international boundary when he encountered [redacted word] unidentified subjects. Shots were exchanged resulting in the agent being shot. At this time, the agent is being transported to an area where he can be air lifted to an emergency medical center.”

That email was sent at 2:31 a.m. on the day Terry was shot. One hour later, a follow-up email read: “Our agent has passed away.”

Burke forwarded those two emails to Holder’s then-deputy chief of staff Monty Wilkinson later that morning, adding that the incident was “not good” because it happened “18 miles w/in” the border.

Wilkinson responded to Burke shortly thereafter and said the incident was “tragic.” “I’ve alerted the AG [Holder], the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”

Then, later that day, Burke followed up with Wilkinson after Burke discovered from officials whose names are redacted that the guns used to kill Terry were from Fast and Furious. “The guns found in the desert near the murder BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about – they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store,” Burke wrote to Wilkinson.

“I’ll call tomorrow,” Wilkinson responded.

Adding to the paper trail, there already are a series of memos containing the intimate details of Fast and Furious that were sent to Holder throughout 2010 from several of his senior aides. Holder has continued to claim he never read them.

Holder is scheduled to appear before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform next Thursday, February 2. This will be the first time the House oversight committee will have an opportunity to question Holder himself, although Holder has already testified before Congress three times on Fast and Furious — twice before the House Judiciary Committee and once before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Congress needs to grow a spine and impeach this weasel, since the president won't fire him. And the fact that President Obama has had nothing to say about this also leads me to believe that this entire plot, which appears to be mainly directed at pushing a major erosion of Second Amendments rights by sparking violent incidents on the border goes far beyond AG Holder and directly into the White House itself.

Does Congress have the basic integrity to insist on a special prosecutor? Idoubt it, but if they do, we might actually be able to get to the bottom of this.

AG Holder Caught In Another Fast And Furious Lie

Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice did a document dump on Operation Fast and Furious to congressional officials late Friday night. One part of this was a series of emails showing Holder was informed of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder on the day it happened – December 15, 2010 – and that he was informed the weapons used to kill Terry were from Fast and Furious on the same day.

Let me reiterate. Eric Holder didn't find out about gunwalking and Fast and Furious "a few weeks" before Congress called him in as he originally said (later amended to "a few months") before his May 2011 testimony.He knew all about it the very same day:

An email from one official, whose name has been redacted from the document, to now-former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke reads: “On December 14, 2010, a BORTAC agent working in the Nogales, AZ AOR was shot. The agent was conducting Border Patrol operations 18 miles north of the international boundary when he encountered [redacted word] unidentified subjects. Shots were exchanged resulting in the agent being shot. At this time, the agent is being transported to an area where he can be air lifted to an emergency medical center.”

That email was sent at 2:31 a.m. on the day Terry was shot. One hour later, a follow-up email read: “Our agent has passed away.”

Burke forwarded those two emails to Holder’s then-deputy chief of staff Monty Wilkinson later that morning, adding that the incident was “not good” because it happened “18 miles w/in” the border.

Wilkinson responded to Burke shortly thereafter and said the incident was “tragic.” “I’ve alerted the AG [Holder], the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”

Then, later that day, Burke followed up with Wilkinson after Burke discovered from officials whose names are redacted that the guns used to kill Terry were from Fast and Furious. “The guns found in the desert near the murder BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about – they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store,” Burke wrote to Wilkinson.

“I’ll call tomorrow,” Wilkinson responded.

Adding to the paper trail, there already are a series of memos containing the intimate details of Fast and Furious that were sent to Holder throughout 2010 from several of his senior aides. Holder has continued to claim he never read them.

Holder is scheduled to appear before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform next Thursday, February 2. This will be the first time the House oversight committee will have an opportunity to question Holder himself, although Holder has already testified before Congress three times on Fast and Furious — twice before the House Judiciary Committee and once before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Congress needs to grow a spine and impeach this weasel, since the president won't fire him. And the fact that President Obama has had nothing to say about this also leads me to believe that this entire plot, which appears to be mainly directed at pushing a major erosion of Second Amendments rights by sparking violent incidents on the border goes far beyond AG Holder and directly into the White House itself.

Does Congress have the basic integrity to insist on a special prosecutor? Idoubt it, but if they do, we might actually be able to get to the bottom of this.

Obama Caught In Huge Whopper - Says Perry,Gingrich, Romney Would Cut All Aid to Israel

"Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel — and every other country — to zero."

"Stand against ‘zeroing out’ aid to Israel," the web page says. "Republican candidates for president Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel — and every other country — to zero. Stand up to this extreme isolationism and join the call to reject the Romney-Perry-Gingrich plan."

It says a great deal about President Obama's contempt for his fellow citizens that he'd even try getting away with this one.

The campaign cites as evidence a series of statements made at a Nov. 12, 2011, debate among the Republican presidential candidates moderated by CBS News’ Scott Pelley and National Journal’s Major Garrett.

What the candidates in question actually said is so far away from what the Obama campaign says they did beggars the imagination.

Rick Perry responded to a question by Pelly about foreign aid to Pakistan by saying this:

"Listen, I think we're having an interesting conversation here, but the deeper one (is about) foreign aid. And we need a president of the United States working with a Congress that sends a clear message to every country. It doesn't make any difference whether it's Pakistan or whether it's Afghanistan or whether it's India.

"The foreign aid budget in my administration for every country is going to start at zero dollars. Zero dollars. And then we'll have a conversation. Then we'll have a conversation in this country about whether or not a penny of our taxpayer dollar needs to go into those countries. And Pakistan is clearly sending us messages, Mitt. It's clearly sending us messages that they -- they don't deserve our foreign aid that we're getting, because they're not being honest with us. American soldiers' lives are being put at jeopardy because of that country. … It's time for us as a country to say no to foreign aid to countries that don't support the United States of America."

Notice Perry says that foreign aid should be cut to "countries that don't support the United States of America." And notice that he specifically says that he'd start at zero dollars and then decide how much aid the US gives them, not that he'd 'zero it out' and eliminate it as the Obama website says.

Newt Gingrich was asked if he agreed with Perry by Major Garret and said this:

"What he said made absolutely perfect sense. … Consider the alternative. You're giving some country $7 billion a year .... or in the case of Egypt, $3 billion a year. So you start off every year and say, ‘Here's your $3 billion, now I'll start thinking’? You ought to start off at zero and say, ‘Explain to me why I should give you a penny.’...

"The Pakistanis hid Bin Laden for at least six years in a military city within a mile of their national defense university. And then they got mad at the people who turned him over to us? And we think those are the acts of allies? I think that's a pretty good idea to start at zero and sometimes stay there."

Mitt Romney later in the debate expressed the same views later talking about Pakistan: "One of the things we have to do with our foreign aid commitments, the ongoing foreign aid commitments -- I agree with Gov. Perry. You start everything at zero."

A sensible position, actually that has nothing to do with 'cutting foreign aid to Israel to zero'.

And guess what...when asked later specifically about aid to Israel, every one of the three GOP candidates made it quite clear where they stood.

Perry said during the debate, "Obviously, Israel is a special ally. And my bet is that we would be funding them at some substantial level."

After the debate a Perry aide e-mailed POLITICO columnist Ben Smith to say, "Perry believes Israel's an extraordinary friend and our greatest ally. … Under Rick Perry, Israel will set the bar for judging foreign aid to any country. Perry's Start at Zero is exactly the right policy -- no country stands to benefit more than Israel from merit-based foreign aid."

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have taken consistently pro-Israel positions during the campaign made statements reiterating both their commitment to Israel as a valued ally and to continued military aid to Israel.

In fact, in Newt Gingrich's case, he cited a 2007 memorandum of understanding between Israel and the Bush Administration formalizing a 10-year commitment for U.S. military aid to Israel.

"We have a 10-year commitment that we have to live out," Gingrich said. "So I think because we’ve made this long-term commitment, you wouldn’t be able to go back to zero."

So the Prevaricator-in-chief is just flat out lying...again.

I'd love to see one of the candidates respond by mentioning that it was the Obama Administration that instituted what amounted to a de facto arms embargo on arms sales to Israel for eight months when President Obama first took office, and later threatened an aid cutoff in defiance of that 2007 MOU.

You'll also notice that th eObama website makes no mention of the one GOP candidate who does want to end all aid to Israel specifically and even introduced an amendment in Congress last February to that effect - Ron Paul.

But by now, I think we know why.

Ihave to admit I am disappointed by President Obama . I'm looking forward to more inventive lies and misstatements, not stupid ones like this. it belittles us both.

(h/t Politifact)

Obama Caught In Huge Whopper - Says Perry,Gingrich, Romney Would Cut All Aid to Israel

"Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel — and every other country — to zero."

"Stand against ‘zeroing out’ aid to Israel," the web page says. "Republican candidates for president Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel — and every other country — to zero. Stand up to this extreme isolationism and join the call to reject the Romney-Perry-Gingrich plan."

It says a great deal about President Obama's contempt for his fellow citizens that he'd even try getting away with this one.

The campaign cites as evidence a series of statements made at a Nov. 12, 2011, debate among the Republican presidential candidates moderated by CBS News’ Scott Pelley and National Journal’s Major Garrett.

What the candidates in question actually said is so far away from what the Obama campaign says they did beggars the imagination.

Rick Perry responded to a question by Pelly about foreign aid to Pakistan by saying this:

"Listen, I think we're having an interesting conversation here, but the deeper one (is about) foreign aid. And we need a president of the United States working with a Congress that sends a clear message to every country. It doesn't make any difference whether it's Pakistan or whether it's Afghanistan or whether it's India.

"The foreign aid budget in my administration for every country is going to start at zero dollars. Zero dollars. And then we'll have a conversation. Then we'll have a conversation in this country about whether or not a penny of our taxpayer dollar needs to go into those countries. And Pakistan is clearly sending us messages, Mitt. It's clearly sending us messages that they -- they don't deserve our foreign aid that we're getting, because they're not being honest with us. American soldiers' lives are being put at jeopardy because of that country. … It's time for us as a country to say no to foreign aid to countries that don't support the United States of America."

Notice Perry says that foreign aid should be cut to "countries that don't support the United States of America." And notice that he specifically says that he'd start at zero dollars and then decide how much aid the US gives them, not that he'd 'zero it out' and eliminate it as the Obama website says.

Newt Gingrich was asked if he agreed with Perry by Major Garret and said this:

"What he said made absolutely perfect sense. … Consider the alternative. You're giving some country $7 billion a year .... or in the case of Egypt, $3 billion a year. So you start off every year and say, ‘Here's your $3 billion, now I'll start thinking’? You ought to start off at zero and say, ‘Explain to me why I should give you a penny.’...

"The Pakistanis hid Bin Laden for at least six years in a military city within a mile of their national defense university. And then they got mad at the people who turned him over to us? And we think those are the acts of allies? I think that's a pretty good idea to start at zero and sometimes stay there."

Mitt Romney later in the debate expressed the same views later talking about Pakistan: "One of the things we have to do with our foreign aid commitments, the ongoing foreign aid commitments -- I agree with Gov. Perry. You start everything at zero."

A sensible position, actually that has nothing to do with 'cutting foreign aid to Israel to zero'.

And guess what...when asked later specifically about aid to Israel, every one of the three GOP candidates made it quite clear where they stood.

Perry said during the debate, "Obviously, Israel is a special ally. And my bet is that we would be funding them at some substantial level."

After the debate a Perry aide e-mailed POLITICO columnist Ben Smith to say, "Perry believes Israel's an extraordinary friend and our greatest ally. … Under Rick Perry, Israel will set the bar for judging foreign aid to any country. Perry's Start at Zero is exactly the right policy -- no country stands to benefit more than Israel from merit-based foreign aid."

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have taken consistently pro-Israel positions during the campaign made statements reiterating both their commitment to Israel as a valued ally and to continued military aid to Israel.

In fact, in Newt Gingrich's case, he cited a 2007 memorandum of understanding between Israel and the Bush Administration formalizing a 10-year commitment for U.S. military aid to Israel.

"We have a 10-year commitment that we have to live out," Gingrich said. "So I think because we’ve made this long-term commitment, you wouldn’t be able to go back to zero."

So the Prevaricator-in-chief is just flat out lying...again.

I'd love to see one of the candidates respond by mentioning that it was the Obama Administration that instituted what amounted to a de facto arms embargo on arms sales to Israel for eight months when President Obama first took office, and later threatened an aid cutoff in defiance of that 2007 MOU.

You'll also notice that th eObama website makes no mention of the one GOP candidate who does want to end all aid to Israel specifically and even introduced an amendment in Congress last February to that effect - Ron Paul.

But by now, I think we know why.

Ihave to admit I am disappointed by President Obama . I'm looking forward to more inventive lies and misstatements, not stupid ones like this. it belittles us both.

(h/t Politifact)

So Now, It's 'Recovery Winter'!!

Remember 'recovery summer' and how that ultimately turned out? Well it's back,this time as 'recovery winter' . At least if you read the Soros media, outlets like the New York Times and other assorted Obamabot shills.

What they're jumping up and down about is a downtick in unemployment of a huge one tenth of a percent in December, from 8.6 to 8.5 and the 'robust' addition of 200,000 jobs.

I deconstructed this once before, but let's go over a few things again.

The percentages they're talking about are the the 'official' U-3 unemployment rate. It accounts only for the people who are receiving or have applied for unemployment benefits and are actively seeking work.

The more accurate stat is the U-6 rate, which government never trumpets but is a lot closer to reality. It includes the above plus people no longer actively seeking employment, people who are not covered by unemployment, like people hired as independent contractors or the owner of the small dry cleaning business or restaurant that closed its doors in your neighborhood last week or people let go with not enough quarters of employment to qualify for benefits or from part time and seasonal jobs. That rate fell too...from 15.6 to 15.4.

Adding 200,000 jobs during the holiday season is also not evidence of an uptick, since a number of seasonal jobs open up and then close afterwards in places like retail. Normally unemployment rates go down between 1 and 2%. A reduction of a tenth of a percent tells us things are actually getting worse. Retailers and others expected a skinny Christmas and gauged their hiring accordingly.

As Zero Hedge points out, there's also a distinct possibility that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is cooking the books by lowering the labor force participation rate to provide an artificially 'lower' unemployment rate.

The market isn't fooled either - the Dow is down almost 40%, although it may come back a bit if there are sell offs.

Look for a 'correction' in this horse manure next month.

So Now, It's 'Recovery Winter'!!

Remember 'recovery summer' and how that ultimately turned out? Well it's back,this time as 'recovery winter' . At least if you read the Soros media, outlets like the New York Times and other assorted Obamabot shills.

What they're jumping up and down about is a downtick in unemployment of a huge one tenth of a percent in December, from 8.6 to 8.5 and the 'robust' addition of 200,000 jobs.

I deconstructed this once before, but let's go over a few things again.

The percentages they're talking about are the the 'official' U-3 unemployment rate. It accounts only for the people who are receiving or have applied for unemployment benefits and are actively seeking work.

The more accurate stat is the U-6 rate, which government never trumpets but is a lot closer to reality. It includes the above plus people no longer actively seeking employment, people who are not covered by unemployment, like people hired as independent contractors or the owner of the small dry cleaning business or restaurant that closed its doors in your neighborhood last week or people let go with not enough quarters of employment to qualify for benefits or from part time and seasonal jobs. That rate fell too...from 15.6 to 15.4.

Adding 200,000 jobs during the holiday season is also not evidence of an uptick, since a number of seasonal jobs open up and then close afterwards in places like retail. Normally unemployment rates go down between 1 and 2%. A reduction of a tenth of a percent tells us things are actually getting worse. Retailers and others expected a skinny Christmas and gauged their hiring accordingly.

As Zero Hedge points out, there's also a distinct possibility that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is cooking the books by lowering the labor force participation rate to provide an artificially 'lower' unemployment rate.

The market isn't fooled either - the Dow is down almost 40%, although it may come back a bit if there are sell offs.

Look for a 'correction' in this horse manure next month.

Homage To Barack Obama - Our Fourth Greatest President!

Yes, just like the Dear Leader says, he's great all right. His line at the end will either make you howl with laughter or shake your head in disgust.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Homage To Barack Obama - Our Fourth Greatest President!

Yes, just like the Dear Leader says, he's great all right. His line at the end will either make you howl with laughter or shake your head in disgust.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!