Santorum: 4 More Years Of Obama Better Than Romney

Like I said previously, one of Rick Santorum's weaknesses is that he doesn't handle pressure well.

His latest, in response to a crushing loss in Illinois? That four more years of President Obama would be better than electing Mitt Romney.

“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future.”

Even Newt Gingrich did a double take on that one, tweeting, “Rick Santorum is dead wrong. Any GOP nominee will be better than Obama.”

The Etch A Sketch remark refers to an interview a Romney campaign aide gave on CNN where he made an unfortunate remark to the effect that “everything changes” for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

If you take the out of context remark to mean that all presidential candidates campaign towards the center once the primaries are over, it's the simple truth but poorly phrased, to say the least.

For Santorum to make statements like this is so far over the top its ridiculous.He obviously never heard of Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment.

For one thing, calling Mitt Romney 'just a little bit different' than President Obama is absolute lunacy, as is speculating that another four years like the ones we've just seen would be anything but disastrous for the country. For another, it's actually Rick Santorum who is a lot closer to President Obama..just from the other side of the spectrum. He's certainly not a conservative.

At this point, all but the diehards are urging him to think about quitting the race. I doubt he will, especially with the Louisiana primary coming up where Louisiana's Catholics can be expected to vote for him and he's favored to win.

Senator Santorum has proven on many levels that he's not ready for prime time. There's no way he can win, and the longer he stays in, the more he helps President Obama's effort for re-election. He needs to put the country ahead of his own ego and get out of the race.

UPDATE: Walkback city...Santorum now has 'clarified' his remarks to say he'll vote for whomever the GOP nominee is against President Obama.Notice he said "vote for" rather than support. Pathetic.

Santorum: 4 More Years Of Obama Better Than Romney

Like I said previously, one of Rick Santorum's weaknesses is that he doesn't handle pressure well.

His latest, in response to a crushing loss in Illinois? That four more years of President Obama would be better than electing Mitt Romney.

“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future.”

Even Newt Gingrich did a double take on that one, tweeting, “Rick Santorum is dead wrong. Any GOP nominee will be better than Obama.”

The Etch A Sketch remark refers to an interview a Romney campaign aide gave on CNN where he made an unfortunate remark to the effect that “everything changes” for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

If you take the out of context remark to mean that all presidential candidates campaign towards the center once the primaries are over, it's the simple truth but poorly phrased, to say the least.

For Santorum to make statements like this is so far over the top its ridiculous.He obviously never heard of Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment.

For one thing, calling Mitt Romney 'just a little bit different' than President Obama is absolute lunacy, as is speculating that another four years like the ones we've just seen would be anything but disastrous for the country. For another, it's actually Rick Santorum who is a lot closer to President Obama..just from the other side of the spectrum. He's certainly not a conservative.

At this point, all but the diehards are urging him to think about quitting the race. I doubt he will, especially with the Louisiana primary coming up where Louisiana's Catholics can be expected to vote for him and he's favored to win.

Senator Santorum has proven on many levels that he's not ready for prime time. There's no way he can win, and the longer he stays in, the more he helps President Obama's effort for re-election. He needs to put the country ahead of his own ego and get out of the race.

UPDATE: Walkback city...Santorum now has 'clarified' his remarks to say he'll vote for whomever the GOP nominee is against President Obama.Notice he said "vote for" rather than support. Pathetic.

In Spite Of Islamist Parliament, US To Resume Funding Egypt's Military

Just this week, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist dominated Egyptian Parliament voted unanimously to declare Israel Egypt's 'number one enemy', expel Israel's ambassador, and endorse terrorism against Israeli civilians:

The vote took the form of an overwhelming endorsement of a report by the Egyptian Parliament's Arab affairs committee that declared “Revolutionary Egypt will never be a friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity (Israel), which we consider to be the number one enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation. It will deal with that entity as an enemy, and the Egyptian government is hereby called upon to review all its relations and accords with that enemy.” The report also endorsed what it called Palestinian resistance “in all its kinds and forms”.....in other words, terrorism against Israeli civilians.

The Obama Administration's response? They're going to unblock the $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt's military, in spite of laws passed by Congress to the contrary:

The Obama administration intends to resume funding for Egypt’s military, despite congressional restrictions and objections from human rights and democracy advocates.

For months, the money for Egypt — more than $1.5 billion, with the bulk earmarked for the military — has been withheld amid that country’s crackdown on pro-democracy groups, including several U.S.-based organizations with close ties in Washington.

A law passed by Congress in December forbids funding unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress in basic freedoms and human rights.

But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is close to announcing plans to bypass those restrictions on national security grounds for fear of worsening already fraying ties with Egyptian leaders...

So...the Obama Administration is bypassing laws passed by Congress because it feels like it? Again?

This is the same Egyptian government that just held U.S. citizens for ransom and collected a cool $5 million to release them, including the son of Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood. Was unblocking the aid money part of the deal?

Even more ironic, the WAPO article linked above refers to the Egyptian military junta as 'one of our major allies in the region'. You see, to that mindset, that's what major allies do. They take American hostages and ransom them for a nice chunk of baksheesh.

The whole rationale for this is interesting. We're throwing money at a non-democratic military junta in order to keep them from being undermined by, wait for it..the same 'Arab Spring' democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood Salafists mix that President Obama was so high on and so supportive of, because the junta is perceived by the White House as more friendly to our interests.

Is that any different from the deal we had with Mubarak? Our idea was that he was a dictator, but he'd keep the peace and keep the Islamist maniacs from taking over.

So now, after the Obama Administration made a huge deal out of deposing him and supporting 'democracy', the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab Spring, we're doing exactly the same thing, only with different and unknown actors and in defiance of sensible measures passed by Congress.

This is typical what passes for strategic thinking for this president and the ideologues he has surrounding him.

We have no idea at this point which way the military junta is going to bend, although all indications are that they will more than likely make a devil's bargain with the Islamists, just as the military did in Iran. In that case, we have spent quite a lot of money we don't have arming our enemies, and those arms could very well end up being used against our ally Israel.

In the unlikely event the junta does manage to hang on for a while, then they are going to remember what we did to Mubarak and be 'allies' in a very selective sense of the word, and we will again be committed to supporting a repressive military dictatorship..which will still likely have to consider Israel and the West an enemy and abrogate the Camp David Accords to maintain any kind of popular support.And of course, if the Islamists eventually manage to take over anyway they will have a ready made excuse to whip up hatred against America for supporting a dictator, just like Iran's Khomeini did.

Not only that, but the Israelis aren't stupid, and know exactly who the arms we're supplying the Egyptians with will end up aimed at. Look for a news story in the near future about a major theft or hijacking of American supplied Egyptian arms that ends up going to Hamas.

Well done, Mr. President. Once again, you've pulled off the trick of angering the parties involved on all sides.

In Spite Of Islamist Parliament, US To Resume Funding Egypt's Military

Just this week, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist dominated Egyptian Parliament voted unanimously to declare Israel Egypt's 'number one enemy', expel Israel's ambassador, and endorse terrorism against Israeli civilians:

The vote took the form of an overwhelming endorsement of a report by the Egyptian Parliament's Arab affairs committee that declared “Revolutionary Egypt will never be a friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity (Israel), which we consider to be the number one enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation. It will deal with that entity as an enemy, and the Egyptian government is hereby called upon to review all its relations and accords with that enemy.” The report also endorsed what it called Palestinian resistance “in all its kinds and forms”.....in other words, terrorism against Israeli civilians.

The Obama Administration's response? They're going to unblock the $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt's military, in spite of laws passed by Congress to the contrary:

The Obama administration intends to resume funding for Egypt’s military, despite congressional restrictions and objections from human rights and democracy advocates.

For months, the money for Egypt — more than $1.5 billion, with the bulk earmarked for the military — has been withheld amid that country’s crackdown on pro-democracy groups, including several U.S.-based organizations with close ties in Washington.

A law passed by Congress in December forbids funding unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress in basic freedoms and human rights.

But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is close to announcing plans to bypass those restrictions on national security grounds for fear of worsening already fraying ties with Egyptian leaders...

So...the Obama Administration is bypassing laws passed by Congress because it feels like it? Again?

This is the same Egyptian government that just held U.S. citizens for ransom and collected a cool $5 million to release them, including the son of Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood. Was unblocking the aid money part of the deal?

Even more ironic, the WAPO article linked above refers to the Egyptian military junta as 'one of our major allies in the region'. You see, to that mindset, that's what major allies do. They take American hostages and ransom them for a nice chunk of baksheesh.

The whole rationale for this is interesting. We're throwing money at a non-democratic military junta in order to keep them from being undermined by, wait for it..the same 'Arab Spring' democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood Salafists mix that President Obama was so high on and so supportive of, because the junta is perceived by the White House as more friendly to our interests.

Is that any different from the deal we had with Mubarak? Our idea was that he was a dictator, but he'd keep the peace and keep the Islamist maniacs from taking over.

So now, after the Obama Administration made a huge deal out of deposing him and supporting 'democracy', the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab Spring, we're doing exactly the same thing, only with different and unknown actors and in defiance of sensible measures passed by Congress.

This is typical what passes for strategic thinking for this president and the ideologues he has surrounding him.

We have no idea at this point which way the military junta is going to bend, although all indications are that they will more than likely make a devil's bargain with the Islamists, just as the military did in Iran. In that case, we have spent quite a lot of money we don't have arming our enemies, and those arms could very well end up being used against our ally Israel.

In the unlikely event the junta does manage to hang on for a while, then they are going to remember what we did to Mubarak and be 'allies' in a very selective sense of the word, and we will again be committed to supporting a repressive military dictatorship..which will still likely have to consider Israel and the West an enemy and abrogate the Camp David Accords to maintain any kind of popular support.And of course, if the Islamists eventually manage to take over anyway they will have a ready made excuse to whip up hatred against America for supporting a dictator, just like Iran's Khomeini did.

Not only that, but the Israelis aren't stupid, and know exactly who the arms we're supplying the Egyptians with will end up aimed at. Look for a news story in the near future about a major theft or hijacking of American supplied Egyptian arms that ends up going to Hamas.

Well done, Mr. President. Once again, you've pulled off the trick of angering the parties involved on all sides.

Treasury Sec Geithner :'You're Right, We Have No Plan To Avert Fiscal Melt-Down; All We Know Is We Don't Like Yours'

C0ngressman Paul Ryan and the House Republicans just passed a realistic budget in response to President Obama's fiscal abortion. It calls for five trillion in realistic spending cuts over the next decade, leaves benefits for seniors over 54 in place and doesn't gut national defense. Guess who drops by to engage in a back and forth with Ryan on the House floor? None other than Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner,speaking on behalf of the Obama Regime.

Ryan uses a chart based on the Administration's own documents to highlight just how dismally the Obama Administration has failed to curb spending and publicly held debt, and how we're going to be the next Greece if we don't do something to fix it.

Geithner's response has to be the sound bite of the year: ""You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."

This president has piled up a $5 trillion deficit in three years,much of it wasted or gifted to campaign donors,political allies and well connected insiders in classic Chicago fashion. Many of them have followed the Solyndra model and have later gone on to have successful business 'failures' at the taxpayer's expense.

For the first two years of his administration, President Obama had a veto proof majority in both Houses of Congress that were his enablers in allowing him to loot our economy and spend whatever he wanted. In fact, if you consult the figures of the Congressional Budget Office, you find that of even the relatively modest $1 trillion deficit he inherited, 67% occurred after January,2007 - when the Democrats first gained control of Congress.

So after all that, President Obama's hand picked Secretary of the Treasury comes before Congress to defend this shameful record and admit they have no clue as to what to do to avert a financial catastrophe,but they're going to make sure no one else does either.

President Clinton at least had the intelligence to allow the Republican Congress to rescue him from the financial folly of his first two years and fix things, knowing he'd get the credit. President Obama is such an arrogant Left wing ideologue that he figures he doesn't have to. And besides,a financial disaster isn't going to affect him in the least..and will go a long way towards getting even with an America he feels needs to be taken down a peg or two.

Treasury Sec Geithner :'You're Right, We Have No Plan To Avert Fiscal Melt-Down; All We Know Is We Don't Like Yours'

C0ngressman Paul Ryan and the House Republicans just passed a realistic budget in response to President Obama's fiscal abortion. It calls for five trillion in realistic spending cuts over the next decade, leaves benefits for seniors over 54 in place and doesn't gut national defense. Guess who drops by to engage in a back and forth with Ryan on the House floor? None other than Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner,speaking on behalf of the Obama Regime.

Ryan uses a chart based on the Administration's own documents to highlight just how dismally the Obama Administration has failed to curb spending and publicly held debt, and how we're going to be the next Greece if we don't do something to fix it.

Geithner's response has to be the sound bite of the year: ""You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."

This president has piled up a $5 trillion deficit in three years,much of it wasted or gifted to campaign donors,political allies and well connected insiders in classic Chicago fashion. Many of them have followed the Solyndra model and have later gone on to have successful business 'failures' at the taxpayer's expense.

For the first two years of his administration, President Obama had a veto proof majority in both Houses of Congress that were his enablers in allowing him to loot our economy and spend whatever he wanted. In fact, if you consult the figures of the Congressional Budget Office, you find that of even the relatively modest $1 trillion deficit he inherited, 67% occurred after January,2007 - when the Democrats first gained control of Congress.

So after all that, President Obama's hand picked Secretary of the Treasury comes before Congress to defend this shameful record and admit they have no clue as to what to do to avert a financial catastrophe,but they're going to make sure no one else does either.

President Clinton at least had the intelligence to allow the Republican Congress to rescue him from the financial folly of his first two years and fix things, knowing he'd get the credit. President Obama is such an arrogant Left wing ideologue that he figures he doesn't have to. And besides,a financial disaster isn't going to affect him in the least..and will go a long way towards getting even with an America he feels needs to be taken down a peg or two.

Newt Attacks Romney For Fiscal Conservatism And Leaner, Smarter Government!

This gets more bizarre the longer it goes on.

Florida has a large population of elderly retired Jews, and Newt Gingrich is targeting them in his personal appearances by claiming that while he was governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed kosher food in state-supported old age homes, thus causing the retirees distress because of the disrespect to their religion.

Sounds pretty nasty, doesn't it? Especially to someone who keeps kosher and imagines all those poor elderly Jews having to choose between violating their faith by eating non-kosher food or starvation.

The real story? What actually happened is that the State of Massachusetts was going through a severe budget crunch and Governor Romney attempted to cut the state budget by ending expensive kosher kitchens in state-supported nursing homes and called for kosher meals to get prepared off-site and bused in to those locations where they were needed. It would have saved the state $600,000 per year, and still provided kosher meals to any Jew that wanted them. The Democrat- dominated Massachusetts legislature shot the proposal down.

Just listen to Newt's new radio spot:

“vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes -- Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher.”

I'm upset about this not only because it gives the lie to Newt Gingrich's claim that he's a 'fiscal conservative' but because it's a disgraceful attempt to manipulate old people and slander another person with a deliberate falsehood. He'll be saying Romney eats babies for breakfast next, and poisons puppies for recreation.

After this, I don't want hear another word from Gingrich or his supporters about 'attack ads' or 'lies'. Not another single word.

Newt Attacks Romney For Fiscal Conservatism And Leaner, Smarter Government!

This gets more bizarre the longer it goes on.

Florida has a large population of elderly retired Jews, and Newt Gingrich is targeting them in his personal appearances by claiming that while he was governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed kosher food in state-supported old age homes, thus causing the retirees distress because of the disrespect to their religion.

Sounds pretty nasty, doesn't it? Especially to someone who keeps kosher and imagines all those poor elderly Jews having to choose between violating their faith by eating non-kosher food or starvation.

The real story? What actually happened is that the State of Massachusetts was going through a severe budget crunch and Governor Romney attempted to cut the state budget by ending expensive kosher kitchens in state-supported nursing homes and called for kosher meals to get prepared off-site and bused in to those locations where they were needed. It would have saved the state $600,000 per year, and still provided kosher meals to any Jew that wanted them. The Democrat- dominated Massachusetts legislature shot the proposal down.

Just listen to Newt's new radio spot:

“vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes -- Holocaust survivors, who for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher.”

I'm upset about this not only because it gives the lie to Newt Gingrich's claim that he's a 'fiscal conservative' but because it's a disgraceful attempt to manipulate old people and slander another person with a deliberate falsehood. He'll be saying Romney eats babies for breakfast next, and poisons puppies for recreation.

After this, I don't want hear another word from Gingrich or his supporters about 'attack ads' or 'lies'. Not another single word.

Obama's State Of The Union - The Hollow Man

Ah, the Hollow Man...

As I've told you before, I listen to these things so you don't have to, and I've got a pretty strong stomach - but tonight's festivities were truly something else.

A transcript is available here for those of you into self-mortification, but I'll go over the basics.

First off, the speech was obviously very well rehearsed down to the last vocal inflection and raised eyebrow..in fact. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were theatrical directions emanating from TOTUS tonight. Simply amazing..yet as he spoke, the contradictions between what was coming out of his mouth and what we've seen coming out of this White House are so radically different they underlined one of the qualities I dislike most about this president -the way he arrogantly thinks everyone's stupid except him, and thinks that the usual rule that nothing ever goes away on the internet doesn't apply where he's concerned.

The president started off and ended by invoking what he referred to as 'this generation of heroes' returning from victory in Iraq, and indeed he used the military frequently as an example of how he wants the Republicans in Congress to behave . It was disgusting to hear, considering how Senator Obama and many of his fellow Democrats cheering him on tonight did everything they could to sabotage our troops in the field and their mission during wartime. Yet he had the unmitigated gall to use military teamwork as an example of what he wants to see in Washington!

Our military is legally bound to follow President Obama's orders no matter how nonsensical. Congress is not, especially when their common sense revolts and it was both deeply insulting as well as very revealing of the president to use the comparison, making the expected rhetoric that came later about working together a mockery. As if President Obama made any pretense of that when he and the Democrats controlled Congress!

The president of course mentioned bin-Laden, and regular members of Joshua's Army may recall what I had to say President Obama's chief boast perhaps being a huge error. And his statement about how the Taliban's momentum has been broken was simply a blatant falsehood - which is exactly why we're desperately negotiating with them and just released one of their leaders with American blood on his hands from Club Gitmo as a 'confidence gesture'.

The president's chief theme, under the slogan 'an economy built to last' is actually pretty simple - eat the rich and punish the corporations to pay for more government spending.

He called for a punishment levy on 'big banks' and 'big oil companies' and is apparently going to sic Eric Holder on the financial sector to ' find out who was responsible for the mortgage collapse'. I guarantee you that well connected Democrats like Franklin Raines and Jaimie Gorelick who ran Fannie Mae into the ground and walked away with multi-million dollar bonuses are not going to have to worry on that account.

You see, it wasn't the banks that made the rules that governed the secondary mortgage market..it was Washington, and government entities Fannie and Freddie set the pace by reducing underwriting standards and down payment requirements while demanding that lenders make more loans to the unqualified based on racial bean counting. And the Democrat majority in Congress defended them from any oversight or reigning in while they did it.

The president went on to mention his great achievement of 'saving' the auto industry. Will anyone remind him that he did it by gifting GM to his union political allies, crapping on private equity holders and giving the company special tax breaks at the taxpayer's expense to make them look artificially profitable? Or that he allowed GM to do stock dumping that was against SEC rules?

Or about the outright lies he told the American people about GM and Chrysler being profitable and returning the money used to bail them out, when in reality they were a huge loss?

We also had to listen to the president's blathering about trade. Rather than lower our corporate income tax sufficiently to encourage more companies to do business here, his solution is to put another punishment levy on companies that outsource, which will have the effect of even more companies relocating all but bare bones operations elsewhere. When Canada's corporate rate is less than half of ours, why not ?

It was also unintentionally comical to hear the president make a vague call for tearing down regulations that stifle entrepreneurship in one part of his speech while mentioning at least three or four brand new regulatory bureaucracies he wants to create and calling for cap n' trade and climate change legislation in another.

The president went on to discuss education, and of course his solution is to spend more taxpayer dollars to hire more teachers to pay more union dues to fund the Democrats. For such a pro-education guy, you'd never think he'd be the one to stop poor kids from getting into a decent school right there in DC.

Not to mention the trillion dollar time bomb for America's economy this president enacted by executive order concerning a new student loans entitlement that will eventually create a bubble similar to housing and is guaranteed to raise the cost of college education.

Yes, he really does intend to bankrupt the country. Or he's simply clueless, take your pick.

The president also got in a nice plug for the DREAM Act for illegal aliens that he enacted by executive order after Congress rejected it twice. What was that about working together again?

President Obama made quite a thing about his favoring the creation of domestic energy while believing that those of us listening would forget about his job killing de facto prohibition on offshore drilling, his opposition to drilling in ANWR , his recent fiasco with the Keystone Pipeline and his war on the coal industry. Or about Solyndra and the other green energy scams he doled out to his campaign donors and bundlers. All you have to do is look at what the price at the pump was when he came into office and what it is now, the largest increase in history...and that doesn't even calculate the corresponding rise in the price of food and other goods.

And speaking of Keystone, I had to chuckle at President Obama's solemnly intoning the so-called Buffet Rule as an example of how 'the rich' should behave. Buffet, a nicely placed Obama donor stands to make a tidy sum because the pipeline got cancelled because the oil we buy from Canada will now have to be shipped via Buffet's railroads. At a surcharge, of course. It's good to be the King's friend!

There's plenty more, but a few final bits that stood out.

President Obama talked a bit about his foreign policy. He reverently evoked the Arab Spring he helped along as 'a wave of change', which it is. He failed to mention that the change involves the rebirth of al-Qaeda and some of it's affiliates in these countries and replacing dictators like Khaddaffi who was no threat to us and Mubarak, Ali Abdullah Saleh and Ben Ali who were at least nominal allies and replacing them with hard line Islamists and salafists who are not going to be friends to the West, not to mention the 'men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews' whose dignity and freedom he claims to be so concerned about. President Obama committed an an historic error here that will come back to haunt us long after he departs the scene.

The president also mentioned what he described as his 'iron clad commitment to Israel's security' which is news to those of us who have followed the interaction between this president and Israel closely.But hey, it's election time, and there a sucker born every minute.

I also found it particularly nauseating to hear this president talk about how smart he is in hollowing out our military budget and in the next moment talking about jobs and VA benefits for those he described as 'those men and women in uniform who defend our freedom.'

This is the same president who is laying off an estimated 500,000 military personnel, many of them who haven't been in long enough to become vested for a military pension or full medical benefits. They'll simply be tossed into an already toxic job market for their 'reward' so President Obama can have more money for his domestic agenda. And I got a horrible taste in my mouth hearing the same President who tried to take away their VA benefits early in his administration talk about health care for veterans.

You have to wonder at what goes through someone's mind when putting on this kind of a performance. Is it simply a case of 'the show must go on'? Or has he simply been mouthing these lies and untruths for so long that he actually believes them by now?

Barack Obama is the modern version of Rehoboam, telling the people of America that he's going to double down his failed policies and add to their yoke.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who gave the Republican rebuttal did a decent job of responding to the president's little show tonight. But he didn't mention much about a lot of the things I've talked about here, and most of the media certainly won't.

That's the real tragedy. It's one thing to snicker to yourself as you see through a cynical con man going through his act for you, but it' s quite another to keep quiet about it and let the rubes get screwed in the name of 'civility' by the Hollow Men of this world.

They deserve better at your hands. We all do.

Obama's State Of The Union - The Hollow Man

Ah, the Hollow Man...

As I've told you before, I listen to these things so you don't have to, and I've got a pretty strong stomach - but tonight's festivities were truly something else.

A transcript is available here for those of you into self-mortification, but I'll go over the basics.

First off, the speech was obviously very well rehearsed down to the last vocal inflection and raised eyebrow..in fact. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were theatrical directions emanating from TOTUS tonight. Simply amazing..yet as he spoke, the contradictions between what was coming out of his mouth and what we've seen coming out of this White House are so radically different they underlined one of the qualities I dislike most about this president -the way he arrogantly thinks everyone's stupid except him, and thinks that the usual rule that nothing ever goes away on the internet doesn't apply where he's concerned.

The president started off and ended by invoking what he referred to as 'this generation of heroes' returning from victory in Iraq, and indeed he used the military frequently as an example of how he wants the Republicans in Congress to behave . It was disgusting to hear, considering how Senator Obama and many of his fellow Democrats cheering him on tonight did everything they could to sabotage our troops in the field and their mission during wartime. Yet he had the unmitigated gall to use military teamwork as an example of what he wants to see in Washington!

Our military is legally bound to follow President Obama's orders no matter how nonsensical. Congress is not, especially when their common sense revolts and it was both deeply insulting as well as very revealing of the president to use the comparison, making the expected rhetoric that came later about working together a mockery. As if President Obama made any pretense of that when he and the Democrats controlled Congress!

The president of course mentioned bin-Laden, and regular members of Joshua's Army may recall what I had to say President Obama's chief boast perhaps being a huge error. And his statement about how the Taliban's momentum has been broken was simply a blatant falsehood - which is exactly why we're desperately negotiating with them and just released one of their leaders with American blood on his hands from Club Gitmo as a 'confidence gesture'.

The president's chief theme, under the slogan 'an economy built to last' is actually pretty simple - eat the rich and punish the corporations to pay for more government spending.

He called for a punishment levy on 'big banks' and 'big oil companies' and is apparently going to sic Eric Holder on the financial sector to ' find out who was responsible for the mortgage collapse'. I guarantee you that well connected Democrats like Franklin Raines and Jaimie Gorelick who ran Fannie Mae into the ground and walked away with multi-million dollar bonuses are not going to have to worry on that account.

You see, it wasn't the banks that made the rules that governed the secondary mortgage market..it was Washington, and government entities Fannie and Freddie set the pace by reducing underwriting standards and down payment requirements while demanding that lenders make more loans to the unqualified based on racial bean counting. And the Democrat majority in Congress defended them from any oversight or reigning in while they did it.

The president went on to mention his great achievement of 'saving' the auto industry. Will anyone remind him that he did it by gifting GM to his union political allies, crapping on private equity holders and giving the company special tax breaks at the taxpayer's expense to make them look artificially profitable? Or that he allowed GM to do stock dumping that was against SEC rules?

Or about the outright lies he told the American people about GM and Chrysler being profitable and returning the money used to bail them out, when in reality they were a huge loss?

We also had to listen to the president's blathering about trade. Rather than lower our corporate income tax sufficiently to encourage more companies to do business here, his solution is to put another punishment levy on companies that outsource, which will have the effect of even more companies relocating all but bare bones operations elsewhere. When Canada's corporate rate is less than half of ours, why not ?

It was also unintentionally comical to hear the president make a vague call for tearing down regulations that stifle entrepreneurship in one part of his speech while mentioning at least three or four brand new regulatory bureaucracies he wants to create and calling for cap n' trade and climate change legislation in another.

The president went on to discuss education, and of course his solution is to spend more taxpayer dollars to hire more teachers to pay more union dues to fund the Democrats. For such a pro-education guy, you'd never think he'd be the one to stop poor kids from getting into a decent school right there in DC.

Not to mention the trillion dollar time bomb for America's economy this president enacted by executive order concerning a new student loans entitlement that will eventually create a bubble similar to housing and is guaranteed to raise the cost of college education.

Yes, he really does intend to bankrupt the country. Or he's simply clueless, take your pick.

The president also got in a nice plug for the DREAM Act for illegal aliens that he enacted by executive order after Congress rejected it twice. What was that about working together again?

President Obama made quite a thing about his favoring the creation of domestic energy while believing that those of us listening would forget about his job killing de facto prohibition on offshore drilling, his opposition to drilling in ANWR , his recent fiasco with the Keystone Pipeline and his war on the coal industry. Or about Solyndra and the other green energy scams he doled out to his campaign donors and bundlers. All you have to do is look at what the price at the pump was when he came into office and what it is now, the largest increase in history...and that doesn't even calculate the corresponding rise in the price of food and other goods.

And speaking of Keystone, I had to chuckle at President Obama's solemnly intoning the so-called Buffet Rule as an example of how 'the rich' should behave. Buffet, a nicely placed Obama donor stands to make a tidy sum because the pipeline got cancelled because the oil we buy from Canada will now have to be shipped via Buffet's railroads. At a surcharge, of course. It's good to be the King's friend!

There's plenty more, but a few final bits that stood out.

President Obama talked a bit about his foreign policy. He reverently evoked the Arab Spring he helped along as 'a wave of change', which it is. He failed to mention that the change involves the rebirth of al-Qaeda and some of it's affiliates in these countries and replacing dictators like Khaddaffi who was no threat to us and Mubarak, Ali Abdullah Saleh and Ben Ali who were at least nominal allies and replacing them with hard line Islamists and salafists who are not going to be friends to the West, not to mention the 'men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews' whose dignity and freedom he claims to be so concerned about. President Obama committed an an historic error here that will come back to haunt us long after he departs the scene.

The president also mentioned what he described as his 'iron clad commitment to Israel's security' which is news to those of us who have followed the interaction between this president and Israel closely.But hey, it's election time, and there a sucker born every minute.

I also found it particularly nauseating to hear this president talk about how smart he is in hollowing out our military budget and in the next moment talking about jobs and VA benefits for those he described as 'those men and women in uniform who defend our freedom.'

This is the same president who is laying off an estimated 500,000 military personnel, many of them who haven't been in long enough to become vested for a military pension or full medical benefits. They'll simply be tossed into an already toxic job market for their 'reward' so President Obama can have more money for his domestic agenda. And I got a horrible taste in my mouth hearing the same President who tried to take away their VA benefits early in his administration talk about health care for veterans.

You have to wonder at what goes through someone's mind when putting on this kind of a performance. Is it simply a case of 'the show must go on'? Or has he simply been mouthing these lies and untruths for so long that he actually believes them by now?

Barack Obama is the modern version of Rehoboam, telling the people of America that he's going to double down his failed policies and add to their yoke.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who gave the Republican rebuttal did a decent job of responding to the president's little show tonight. But he didn't mention much about a lot of the things I've talked about here, and most of the media certainly won't.

That's the real tragedy. It's one thing to snicker to yourself as you see through a cynical con man going through his act for you, but it' s quite another to keep quiet about it and let the rubes get screwed in the name of 'civility' by the Hollow Men of this world.

They deserve better at your hands. We all do.

The Disgrace Of The Fourth Estate - The Obama Media Group

Interesting times, to say the least.

President Obama's surrogates in the dinosaur media are wasting no time in attempting to clear the way for him the same way this president has always won elections - by using Alinskyite tactics to destroy opponents in advance.

It worked with Jack Ryan, whose divorce records were mysteriously unsealed by Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's pals on the Chicago Tribune to the point where Ryan dropped out of the race and Obama coasted to an easy victory in a race he likely would have lost otherwise.

It was done to John McCain, where the campaign started with a bogus front page New York Times story about an affair he supposedly had with a lobbyist, and even continued with attacks on his war record, his age and his spouse's character.

And it was done to Governor Sarah Palin, with tons of opposition researchers combing Alaska, the setting up an entire network of local Democrat operatives, using the Journolist network to plan media strategy to demonize her, having the campaign collude with with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson in advance of the Palin interviews, mounting an organized attempt to bankrupt the Palin family and even stooping to attacking her children.

The same forces are at work once again. We've already seen the media hit jobs on Michele Bachmann attacking her religion, her relationship with her husband, and her generosity of spirit in adopting foster children. We saw how anxious the media were to jump on Herman Cain. We saw how the dinosaur media attacked the record of one of the most successful governors in America. Rick Perry.

And now, the assault is focused on Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

I think Rush Limbaugh is entirely correct that Matt Drudge threw a monkey wrench into the works by exposing the ABC interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife in advance.

The day before, ABC had gone after Mitt Romney with two stories so bogus they don't even qualify as intelligent commentary, let alone journalism. The first one attacked his Mormon faith directly and his charitable contributions to the Church of the LDS in terms that were designed to convey the impression of a sinister, behind the scenes religious right wing mafia in which Governor Romney's part was now 'newly uncovered'. The second focused on portraying him as a tax cheat and plutocrat with 'millions parked in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven'.

The original waited until the very end of the story to inform you that what Governor Romney was doing was entirely legal and that he pays taxes on the money. It has since been changed to include a line in the second paragraph saying 'spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based.'

A number of people sounded off in the comments section on how ridiculous the article was. Here's a sampling:

This article is completely uninformed and misleading. Investment groups use Cayman entities to avoid DOUBLE taxation of capital gains for foreign investors. It is not in any way depriving the US IRS of any money it is entitled to. There is no "hidden" money in this. Will the reporters simply call any reasonable corporate attorney who knows about fund formation to understand this, and then do the responsible thing - retract their story or clarify the intent of these Cayman investments. It is driving me crazy to even think about how misleading this article is. And judging by the comments, people are buying into it. Again, ask ANY corporate attorney that knows about fund formation. There is NO tax evasion that comes from this, and there is NO undeclared money in these Cayman funds. This is allowing international investors to invest through a single Cayman entity as opposed to investing through hundreds of foreign companies (German, Italian, Singaporean, etc.).


Very common for American Companies to set up operations in Cayman Islands an Bermuda. Virtually all major corporations do it. The impact has been litigated several times overs - and the tax rules are clear cut. It is common largely for corporations that self insure. There aren't all that many jobs connected with the overseas operations - a few accountants generally. Some of the resasons they do it have to do with holding foreign currencies. I don't think it is allowed here - but managing currency re-evaluations is a major risk management necessity for corporations. Nothing to see here.


Average Americans making $36,000 - $55,000 only pay 3.1% in income tax.yes, 3.1%, that's it.I'm actually impressed that Romney pays 15%, because take Obama's buddy, Warren Buffett, for example: Warren Buffett is far, far more wealthy than Romney,and Warren Buffett pays Less Than 1% in income tax.


I am writing in response to your article about Mitt Romney's use of Cayman vehicles. This is truly irresponsible reporting. I know first-hand about these structures, and they are completely legitimate. There is NOTHING unethical about this as the article's innuendo implies. This is legitimate, ethical, and the responsible thing for Bain to do for its investors. The motive for doing this is exactly as they explained. The corporations that Bain invests in pay their corporate taxes. The partners at Bain pay taxes. The investors in Bain pay taxes. They are helping their investors avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains. A foreign investor in say... Germany can buy a US company stock in Germany on the stock exchange. The US company will pay its taxes, so the IRS gets everything it is due. The German stockholder is ONLY liable for capital gains taxes in Germany, not the US. Now for a fund like Bain, they have investors in many countries. If Bain sets up a US corporation, LLC, or Partnership as the holding vehicle for all of their investors, then every investor will be subject to US capital gains taxes - even if they have no business, presence, or operation in the US. Then they will also have to pay their taxes in their homeland. This is ONLY because of using a US holding company. If the German investor invested directly through a German company, they would not be subject to US capital gains taxes. It isn't practical for a company like Bain to set up hundreds of holding companies for each country that they have an investor from, so they set it up in a tax jurisdiction that is neutral such as the Caymans. That way Bain doesn't have to set up hundreds of holding vehicles, and foreign investors who WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY US TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS ANYWAY can all invest through one vehicle. This is to reduce the number of necessary entities and avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains, not to avoid taxes period.


Being a CPA, I know that dividends and capital gains are taxes at a 15% tax rate, What this article fails to mention is that this income comes from corporations that pay 35% in income taxes. Therefore the effective rate of this income is closer to 50%.

The entire idea was to slime Romney enough so that Gingrich either won South Carolina or finished a strong second and then unleash the interview from his ex-wife to take him out as well. Matt Drudge simply forced them to unleash it prematurely..not that it mattered to the media. CNN's John King's opening question in last night debate was to ask Newt Gingrich to respond to his ex-wife's recent television interview describing his desire for an open marriage. Gingrich's response:

GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.(APPLAUSE)

KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

GINGRICH: Let me finish.

KING: Please.

GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (APPLAUSE)

My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (APPLAUSE)

KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not -- I get your point. I take your point.

GINGRICH: John -- John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it. (APPLAUSE)

Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.

I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

Actually, they're already getting around to Rick Santorum, alleging that his wife had an affair with an abortionist before the Santorum's marriage - as if that has any place in a presidential campaign. They will not go after Ron Paul in great detail, and I've already explained to you why.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone in the dinosaur media has any interest in exploring Fast and Furious, Solyndra and the other Green Energy scams. Or President Obama's relationship with the Nation of Islam, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour and Edward Said, or his corrupt deals with people like jailed bagman Tony Rezco, Big Pharma and a host of others.

With few exceptions, they aren't journalists in any sense 0f the word. They aren't even commentators for the most part, because commentators of whatever viewpoint usually attempt to present things honestly from their own viewpoints.

They're just campaign operatives in masquerade, following marching orders from upstairs including from the White House. They're simply bought and paid for whores, with the exception that a whore generally provides value for money.

They're worthy of no respect or consideration whatsoever, and it's about time people let them know about it, and often.

The Disgrace Of The Fourth Estate - The Obama Media Group

Interesting times, to say the least.

President Obama's surrogates in the dinosaur media are wasting no time in attempting to clear the way for him the same way this president has always won elections - by using Alinskyite tactics to destroy opponents in advance.

It worked with Jack Ryan, whose divorce records were mysteriously unsealed by Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's pals on the Chicago Tribune to the point where Ryan dropped out of the race and Obama coasted to an easy victory in a race he likely would have lost otherwise.

It was done to John McCain, where the campaign started with a bogus front page New York Times story about an affair he supposedly had with a lobbyist, and even continued with attacks on his war record, his age and his spouse's character.

And it was done to Governor Sarah Palin, with tons of opposition researchers combing Alaska, the setting up an entire network of local Democrat operatives, using the Journolist network to plan media strategy to demonize her, having the campaign collude with with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson in advance of the Palin interviews, mounting an organized attempt to bankrupt the Palin family and even stooping to attacking her children.

The same forces are at work once again. We've already seen the media hit jobs on Michele Bachmann attacking her religion, her relationship with her husband, and her generosity of spirit in adopting foster children. We saw how anxious the media were to jump on Herman Cain. We saw how the dinosaur media attacked the record of one of the most successful governors in America. Rick Perry.

And now, the assault is focused on Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

I think Rush Limbaugh is entirely correct that Matt Drudge threw a monkey wrench into the works by exposing the ABC interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife in advance.

The day before, ABC had gone after Mitt Romney with two stories so bogus they don't even qualify as intelligent commentary, let alone journalism. The first one attacked his Mormon faith directly and his charitable contributions to the Church of the LDS in terms that were designed to convey the impression of a sinister, behind the scenes religious right wing mafia in which Governor Romney's part was now 'newly uncovered'. The second focused on portraying him as a tax cheat and plutocrat with 'millions parked in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven'.

The original waited until the very end of the story to inform you that what Governor Romney was doing was entirely legal and that he pays taxes on the money. It has since been changed to include a line in the second paragraph saying 'spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based.'

A number of people sounded off in the comments section on how ridiculous the article was. Here's a sampling:

This article is completely uninformed and misleading. Investment groups use Cayman entities to avoid DOUBLE taxation of capital gains for foreign investors. It is not in any way depriving the US IRS of any money it is entitled to. There is no "hidden" money in this. Will the reporters simply call any reasonable corporate attorney who knows about fund formation to understand this, and then do the responsible thing - retract their story or clarify the intent of these Cayman investments. It is driving me crazy to even think about how misleading this article is. And judging by the comments, people are buying into it. Again, ask ANY corporate attorney that knows about fund formation. There is NO tax evasion that comes from this, and there is NO undeclared money in these Cayman funds. This is allowing international investors to invest through a single Cayman entity as opposed to investing through hundreds of foreign companies (German, Italian, Singaporean, etc.).


Very common for American Companies to set up operations in Cayman Islands an Bermuda. Virtually all major corporations do it. The impact has been litigated several times overs - and the tax rules are clear cut. It is common largely for corporations that self insure. There aren't all that many jobs connected with the overseas operations - a few accountants generally. Some of the resasons they do it have to do with holding foreign currencies. I don't think it is allowed here - but managing currency re-evaluations is a major risk management necessity for corporations. Nothing to see here.


Average Americans making $36,000 - $55,000 only pay 3.1% in income tax.yes, 3.1%, that's it.I'm actually impressed that Romney pays 15%, because take Obama's buddy, Warren Buffett, for example: Warren Buffett is far, far more wealthy than Romney,and Warren Buffett pays Less Than 1% in income tax.


I am writing in response to your article about Mitt Romney's use of Cayman vehicles. This is truly irresponsible reporting. I know first-hand about these structures, and they are completely legitimate. There is NOTHING unethical about this as the article's innuendo implies. This is legitimate, ethical, and the responsible thing for Bain to do for its investors. The motive for doing this is exactly as they explained. The corporations that Bain invests in pay their corporate taxes. The partners at Bain pay taxes. The investors in Bain pay taxes. They are helping their investors avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains. A foreign investor in say... Germany can buy a US company stock in Germany on the stock exchange. The US company will pay its taxes, so the IRS gets everything it is due. The German stockholder is ONLY liable for capital gains taxes in Germany, not the US. Now for a fund like Bain, they have investors in many countries. If Bain sets up a US corporation, LLC, or Partnership as the holding vehicle for all of their investors, then every investor will be subject to US capital gains taxes - even if they have no business, presence, or operation in the US. Then they will also have to pay their taxes in their homeland. This is ONLY because of using a US holding company. If the German investor invested directly through a German company, they would not be subject to US capital gains taxes. It isn't practical for a company like Bain to set up hundreds of holding companies for each country that they have an investor from, so they set it up in a tax jurisdiction that is neutral such as the Caymans. That way Bain doesn't have to set up hundreds of holding vehicles, and foreign investors who WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY US TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS ANYWAY can all invest through one vehicle. This is to reduce the number of necessary entities and avoid DOUBLE taxation on capital gains, not to avoid taxes period.


Being a CPA, I know that dividends and capital gains are taxes at a 15% tax rate, What this article fails to mention is that this income comes from corporations that pay 35% in income taxes. Therefore the effective rate of this income is closer to 50%.

The entire idea was to slime Romney enough so that Gingrich either won South Carolina or finished a strong second and then unleash the interview from his ex-wife to take him out as well. Matt Drudge simply forced them to unleash it prematurely..not that it mattered to the media. CNN's John King's opening question in last night debate was to ask Newt Gingrich to respond to his ex-wife's recent television interview describing his desire for an open marriage. Gingrich's response:

GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.(APPLAUSE)

KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

GINGRICH: Let me finish.

KING: Please.

GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. (APPLAUSE)

My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. (APPLAUSE)

KING: As you noted, Mr. Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I'm not -- I get your point. I take your point.

GINGRICH: John -- John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it. (APPLAUSE)

Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.

I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

Actually, they're already getting around to Rick Santorum, alleging that his wife had an affair with an abortionist before the Santorum's marriage - as if that has any place in a presidential campaign. They will not go after Ron Paul in great detail, and I've already explained to you why.

Meanwhile, hardly anyone in the dinosaur media has any interest in exploring Fast and Furious, Solyndra and the other Green Energy scams. Or President Obama's relationship with the Nation of Islam, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour and Edward Said, or his corrupt deals with people like jailed bagman Tony Rezco, Big Pharma and a host of others.

With few exceptions, they aren't journalists in any sense 0f the word. They aren't even commentators for the most part, because commentators of whatever viewpoint usually attempt to present things honestly from their own viewpoints.

They're just campaign operatives in masquerade, following marching orders from upstairs including from the White House. They're simply bought and paid for whores, with the exception that a whore generally provides value for money.

They're worthy of no respect or consideration whatsoever, and it's about time people let them know about it, and often.

What NewsWeak And Sully Think Of The Rest Of The Country

Unfreakingbelievable.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin weighs in:



Love it!

What NewsWeak And Sully Think Of The Rest Of The Country

Unfreakingbelievable.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin weighs in:



Love it!

Last Night's Debate - 'Moderator' Stephanopoulos Does His Bit For Obama

Last night's debate in New Hampshire was most notable for proving once again that Republicans and especially conservative Republicans should avoid the dinosaur media like the plague.

Last night's debate was hosted by ABC, and moderated by George Stephanopoulos - ex-campaign operative, Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy and press spin jockey for President Bill Clinton, who walked into his job with ABC as soon as he resigned from the White House.

Stephanopoulos' 'moderating' lacked even a semblance of objectivity or journalistic ethics as he fired over the top broadsides , often hypothetical ones at the GOP candidates to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he got an early morning call from the White House beforehand. Here's a sample:

“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”

“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”

Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.

In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.

“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.

Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”

Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.

“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception,” Romney responded. “No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.”

Stephanopoulos also took shots at the other candidates, notably Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. And he deliberately encouraged the candidates to squabble among themselves rather than actually doing what a moderator is supposed to do, keep things on track and on topic. I'm sure that pleased the Obama campaign no end.

Oh, I hear what you're thinking...'hey,George Stephanopoulos is a human being,he has his views, you can't expect him to shut them off.'

Actually, that's exactly what I expect, from him and anyone else in the media who bills themselves as journalists and news professionals rather than commentators or opinion writers.

Tell me, when you go to work in an office, in a factory, or a business environment do you make a point of trumpeting your politics? Do you let them affect your job performance? Let's say you're Democrat plumber whose boss sends you on a job, you make a point of talking politics with the customer and modify your charges and your performance based on their ideology. How long do you think you'd stay employed?

The same thing is true in most work environments...with the exception of academia,Hollywood and the dinosaur media, where voicing conservative views can impact your employment prospects unless you're too well established and entrenched to touch.

A detached, balanced and non-biased attitude ought to be the standard in broadcast news and journalism, and it used to be, at least on the surface. Not any more. If George Stephanopoulos received any negative feedback from his employers at ABC for his performance, it was for not being more subtle about it.

That's exactly why the stocks, the readers and the audience are plummeting at the dinosaur media papers and the alphabet networks, and why the internet, talk radio and FOX, whose motto 'Fair and Balanced' is exemplified by their having Democrat Chris Wallace as their main anchor are seeing their readership and audiences surge. Since the dinosaur media's whitewash of President Obama, more and more people simply aren't drinking the Kool-ade anymore.

If I were running, I wouldn't even go near a debate like this. I think NewtGingrich had a decent idea of making these things Lincoln -Douglas style, with no moderator but a timekeeper and the candidates forced to think on their feet to counter each other's arguments. At the very least, I wouldn't go near one sponsored by the alphabet networks unless I badly needed exposure.

As for the rest of the debate, it was notable that once again, no one has really been able to lay a glove on Mitt Romney. There were a few attempts, mainly by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, mainly focusing on Romney's changes in his positions and his time at Bain Capital, but they didn't really seem to do much damage and seemed fairly ineffectual.

The primary is Tuesday, and Romney is expected to win. It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum end up finishing as we proceed on to South Carolina.

ADDENDUM: Hugh Hewitt notes that the execrable David Gregory did exactly the same thing that Stephanopoulos did last night in the NBC debate Gregory 'moderated' this Sunday morning.

No question in my mind now that this was coordinated from the White House. Disgraceful.

Last Night's Debate - 'Moderator' Stephanopoulos Does His Bit For Obama

Last night's debate in New Hampshire was most notable for proving once again that Republicans and especially conservative Republicans should avoid the dinosaur media like the plague.

Last night's debate was hosted by ABC, and moderated by George Stephanopoulos - ex-campaign operative, Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy and press spin jockey for President Bill Clinton, who walked into his job with ABC as soon as he resigned from the White House.

Stephanopoulos' 'moderating' lacked even a semblance of objectivity or journalistic ethics as he fired over the top broadsides , often hypothetical ones at the GOP candidates to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he got an early morning call from the White House beforehand. Here's a sample:

“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”

“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”

Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.

In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.

“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.

Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”

Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.

“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception,” Romney responded. “No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.”

Stephanopoulos also took shots at the other candidates, notably Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. And he deliberately encouraged the candidates to squabble among themselves rather than actually doing what a moderator is supposed to do, keep things on track and on topic. I'm sure that pleased the Obama campaign no end.

Oh, I hear what you're thinking...'hey,George Stephanopoulos is a human being,he has his views, you can't expect him to shut them off.'

Actually, that's exactly what I expect, from him and anyone else in the media who bills themselves as journalists and news professionals rather than commentators or opinion writers.

Tell me, when you go to work in an office, in a factory, or a business environment do you make a point of trumpeting your politics? Do you let them affect your job performance? Let's say you're Democrat plumber whose boss sends you on a job, you make a point of talking politics with the customer and modify your charges and your performance based on their ideology. How long do you think you'd stay employed?

The same thing is true in most work environments...with the exception of academia,Hollywood and the dinosaur media, where voicing conservative views can impact your employment prospects unless you're too well established and entrenched to touch.

A detached, balanced and non-biased attitude ought to be the standard in broadcast news and journalism, and it used to be, at least on the surface. Not any more. If George Stephanopoulos received any negative feedback from his employers at ABC for his performance, it was for not being more subtle about it.

That's exactly why the stocks, the readers and the audience are plummeting at the dinosaur media papers and the alphabet networks, and why the internet, talk radio and FOX, whose motto 'Fair and Balanced' is exemplified by their having Democrat Chris Wallace as their main anchor are seeing their readership and audiences surge. Since the dinosaur media's whitewash of President Obama, more and more people simply aren't drinking the Kool-ade anymore.

If I were running, I wouldn't even go near a debate like this. I think NewtGingrich had a decent idea of making these things Lincoln -Douglas style, with no moderator but a timekeeper and the candidates forced to think on their feet to counter each other's arguments. At the very least, I wouldn't go near one sponsored by the alphabet networks unless I badly needed exposure.

As for the rest of the debate, it was notable that once again, no one has really been able to lay a glove on Mitt Romney. There were a few attempts, mainly by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, mainly focusing on Romney's changes in his positions and his time at Bain Capital, but they didn't really seem to do much damage and seemed fairly ineffectual.

The primary is Tuesday, and Romney is expected to win. It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum end up finishing as we proceed on to South Carolina.

ADDENDUM: Hugh Hewitt notes that the execrable David Gregory did exactly the same thing that Stephanopoulos did last night in the NBC debate Gregory 'moderated' this Sunday morning.

No question in my mind now that this was coordinated from the White House. Disgraceful.

Alan Colmes Mocks Rick Santorum Over Dead Child - Lowest of The Low

People say FOX News is biased, but I can't imagine how you can possibly believe that when they allow a scumbag like Alan Colmes airtime. Regular members of Joshua's Army might remember that he actually applauded Iran's proxy war against our troops in Iraq and accused Sarah Palin of causing her son's Down's Syndrome. But his latest ought to ensure that no one of any decency has anything to do with him again.

Asked about GOP Candidate Rick Santorum's recent surge in Iowa, Colmes replied: "Well, hah hah. it's certainly hard work in that he visited all the ugly - you know, like every part of the state. And it's also that the Republicans have speed dated every other Republican and so there's nobody left except Rick Santorum. But once they get a load of some of the crazy things he said and done like taking his two-hour old baby who died right after childbirth home and played with it for a couple of hours so his other children would know that the child was real...."

At that point NRO Editor Rich Lowrey, another guest on the panel interrupted him, saying: "That's a cheap shot, Alan. To say it's crazy, something that's that personal and hurtful as losing a child and to mock it like that is beyond the pale and beneath you."

Except that in this case Rich Lowrey is dead wrong. Nothing is beneath this creep..absolutely nothing. Some one should have slapped his smirking countenance out of that chair and thrown him out of the building bodily.

Below, Senator Santorum talks about this son's death, and why he brought his son home for the last time:



Alan Colmes tweeted the following afterwards:

@AlanColmes

just spoke to @RickSantorum. He and Karen graciously accepted my apology for a hurtful comment

I sent a retweet to Alan Colmes telling him exactly what I thought of him. It was not polite or gracious in the least.

Alan Colmes Mocks Rick Santorum Over Dead Child - Lowest of The Low

People say FOX News is biased, but I can't imagine how you can possibly believe that when they allow a scumbag like Alan Colmes airtime. Regular members of Joshua's Army might remember that he actually applauded Iran's proxy war against our troops in Iraq and accused Sarah Palin of causing her son's Down's Syndrome. But his latest ought to ensure that no one of any decency has anything to do with him again.

Asked about GOP Candidate Rick Santorum's recent surge in Iowa, Colmes replied: "Well, hah hah. it's certainly hard work in that he visited all the ugly - you know, like every part of the state. And it's also that the Republicans have speed dated every other Republican and so there's nobody left except Rick Santorum. But once they get a load of some of the crazy things he said and done like taking his two-hour old baby who died right after childbirth home and played with it for a couple of hours so his other children would know that the child was real...."

At that point NRO Editor Rich Lowrey, another guest on the panel interrupted him, saying: "That's a cheap shot, Alan. To say it's crazy, something that's that personal and hurtful as losing a child and to mock it like that is beyond the pale and beneath you."

Except that in this case Rich Lowrey is dead wrong. Nothing is beneath this creep..absolutely nothing. Some one should have slapped his smirking countenance out of that chair and thrown him out of the building bodily.

Below, Senator Santorum talks about this son's death, and why he brought his son home for the last time:



Alan Colmes tweeted the following afterwards:

@AlanColmes

just spoke to @RickSantorum. He and Karen graciously accepted my apology for a hurtful comment

I sent a retweet to Alan Colmes telling him exactly what I thought of him. It was not polite or gracious in the least.