Christina Roemer is leaving

One of the WH advisers responsible for creating this chart:


















Is leaving.
About friggin time.

Missouri's vote on health care

About 71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.

This is just the first step, but its important. It will force the federal government into a position where they will have to assert that insurance is a federal concern. Furthermore, they'll have to back laws that give the federal government a superseding right to fine you if you do not have insurance.

Debt, by state

As we all know, government spending is up. Not just on the federal level, but on the state level too.
So its worth knowing what your debt is, in the state that you are in, for the state that you are in.
CNN Money has provided this handy chart.

Take a look. Be informed.

The Kagan vote tally

From Real Clear Politics, the breakdown.
I had read that all but five Republicans had voted against her, and that one Democrat voted for her. So I wanted to know who those people were.

The Democrat was Nebraskan Ben Nelson, who was already targeted by the left.
The Republicans who voted against the grain of their party are:
Lugar from Indiana, Collins and Snowe from Maine, Gregg from New Hampshire, and Graham from South Carolina.

Naturally, East coast Republicans.

Old WH press seating chart

From 538, who got it from the WH.
For anyone who thought that it wasn't right that Fox was chosen for one of the front seats, note that they were the only cable news station that didn't have a seat up front.
Despite being #1 in the ratings.

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,245,000 viewers
CNN – 357,000 viewers
MSNBC – 367,000 viewers
CNBC – 184,000 viewers
HLN – 293,000 viewers

Chart of our health care

The GOP put out an updated chart of what our health care will look like.
This one is classic.

Click here to download the PDF.

Andy Griffith is pitching for Barack

Yet another thing that drives me crazy is when I find out that we've paid for ads to run on television telling people how to take advantage of an entitlement.

One such case is now running on cable, using Andy Griffith as a pitchman for medicare. Of everything that I find distasteful in my government, this is among the worst. I do not want to pay taxes so that the government can buy commercials to tell me all of the great things I'm getting in return for paying taxes. In theory, my representatives can do that themselves.

White House and their criminal guest

Yet another one of the White Houses' stage props have turned on them.
This time, its not a teleprompter, but Leslie Macko. The president was using her as an example of someone who kept sending out resumes, but who could not get a job.

The only problem with this?
Uhm.. it might be that she had two criminal convictions on her record. That might be why Leslie was having trouble becoming employed again.

The new "Blame the Republicans" Talking Points

I debate politics. A lot.
Lately, there is one argument that keeps coming up that is about as lame as it comes. Its a variation on blaming Republicans for everything.

On any topic, from cap & trade to running unprecedented deficits, the newest spin is to suggest that Republicans wanted to do it first.

Jill Lawrence dances this theme in her post on Politics Daily.

So many Republicans have changed their ideas on so many major issues that it's hard to keep up.

Jill then plays a very dangerous game of suggesting that some Republicans represent all of them.

Some examples of how Jill is distorting the truth:

1. Financial disclosure...."Republicans are in favor of disclosure," Sen. Mitch McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in 2000. Seven years later, on the same program, House GOP leader John Boehner declared: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
But Boehner voted no last month on the DISCLOSE Act, which requires corporations, unions and some other groups to disclose more information about their campaign activities.

So let's see what Boehner was asked:

WALLACE: But you have indicated — in fact, at one point, you used and then took back the word "childish" to describe this idea of all these bans on gifts and travel. Do you feel, in fact, that bans make less sense than just more disclosure of what happens?

BOEHNER: I think that some of the proposals that were out there — and there have been a lot of proposals offered by members, by outside groups. And I thought some of the proposals were outright childish, treating members like kids.

I think that what we need to do is we need to deal with the underlying problems that we have today. And I believe that disclosure of the relationship between those who lobby us, whether they be paid lobbyists here in Washington, those from agencies, or others — disclosure of those relationships — and let the American people take a look at how this relationship works.

Sunlight's the best disinfectant. I think it will help.

Interesting. So Boehner didn't favor laws that "require[s] corporations, unions and some other groups to disclose more information about their campaign activities."
Rather, Boehner favored disclosure of lobbyists and who they work for.

If you google the phrase "Sunlight is the best disinfectant", you'd swear that Boehner endorsed every and any type of financial disclosure. That's how strong this narrative has become.
More on this later.

But make no mistake, Jill Lawrence is trying to muddy the waters of real debate.

Center For Automobile Research, propaganda

Fox had this story about the president and the auto industry.
The president is going on a victory tour to discuss how great everything is now after he bailed them out.

While watching the video, I noted that part of the video seemed to be kinda cut in, by a guy named David Cole from the Center for Automobile Research.
Watch it, and note how David comes in to defend the auto industry.

Now I know that sometimes, special interest groups will supply television studios with pre-cut footage of them commenting on an issue. And this certainly seemed to be the case. But I googled to find out if it was.
That's how I found this, by the NYTPicker:

The center has been cited in 137 different Times stories since 2001, most of them quoting David Cole -- who has been variously identified by Times reporters as its "director," "executive director," "president," "chairman" and "head." (CAR's website give his title as "chairman.")

Clearly, its a special interest group that does a great job of feeding quotes the the NY Times.
I think they have outsourced their influence.

A very short history of the attack on Goldline

Its started with Color Of Change, and then moved to Media Matters.


Go to Media Matters and punch in the search term "Goldline". You'll get 9 pages of hits.

Most of them are labeled "So, who's still advertising on Beck?"
This is one of the first pages where they did this, back in August of 2009. They've been doing it nonstop for a year.

Media Matters for America has compiled a list of companies that did run ads on Glenn Beck this evening (August 26) in the order they appeared:

Goldline, of course, was on that list.

Here's one page on Media Matters that starts the 'Glenn Beck is trying to get you to buy gold' narrative. The money quote?

Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." The gold companies are among the last ones that still want to be associated with Beck.
Today, they got their reward.

Never let it be said that Media Matters holds back on the greedy people narrative. To their credit, Media Matters did not say anything about Shekels.

This narrative has continued for a year now.

Another page I've found along the way is from SEIU.
SEIU is one of Beck's favorite targets. Who woulda guessed that they'd start aiming at his show too?

Let's be clear about what the attack on Goldline is really about: the far left trying to shut Beck up.
Remember what Media Matters wrote a while back:

The gold companies are among the last ones that still want to be associated with Beck.

Well. We can't have that... can we?

More 'unexpected' economic news

My favorite new economic phrase is "unexpected". As in, "Unemployment was unexpectedly higher". Or, "GDP was unexpectedly down."

Now we get:

The recession was deeper than the government previously thought.

The Commerce Department, in revisions issued Friday, estimates the economy shrank 2.6 percent last year -- the steepest drop since 1946. That's worse than the 2.4 percent decline originally estimated.

uh huh.

Blogger Brian Steltzer chastised Fox News for its low viewership among African Americans.
HuffPo, being HuffPo, followed suit.

This irony is clear when you find out that Brian Steltzer has the lowest readership of any media blog:

Interestingly, though, the media site where Stelter primarily blogs (New York Times' Media Decoder) suffers from the lowest percentage of African-American readers (4.6%) when compared to comparable media sites like Mediaite (5.8%), Gawker (6.4%), Mediabistro (9.2%), etc., according to Nielsen Media Research.

Congrats to Matt Lewis of Politics Daily for the catch.

Why is "Inside Islam" on America.gov?

Every once in a while, this administration does something that makes paranoid conspiracy theorists look like geniuses.

I recently ran across a special on PBS called Inside Islam.
Its a pretty ham-handed attempt to portray Islam as just any other religion. One that respects women, abhors violence, but just wishes that America would never, ever, ever allow themselves to influence other cultures.

According to "Inside Islam", they do not hate us for who we are. Heck, the show spends half of the show telling us how much Islam admires the democracy of America. Its just like any other religion, it keeps telling us.
When the topic of suicide bombers comes up, the show tries to tell us that it has nothing to do with religion. They try to explain that Kamakaze pilots killed themselves too, but not in the name of religion. (Epic fail. Kamakaze pilots believed highly that they would be rewarded spiritually.)

Anyway, I decided to Google to find out more about the intention of the film. I figured out that maybe I was missing their greater point.
That's when I ran across this link.
Its America.gov.
That's us, by the way.

Okay. So why is America.gov running a promo for Inside Islam? The program was not sponsored by the US (as far as I know) and is not about the US.

Someone explain this one to me.

I forgot to mention... I also found this link:

Attention Federal Employees

Support better American – Muslim relations!

Unity Productions Foundation (UPF) is now approved and enrolled in the Combined Federal Campaign. Our CFC Code #30916! As a federal employee, your donation will be deducted directly from your paycheck and is tax deductible.

Founded by Michael Wolfe (ABC News Nightline Hajj Coverage) and Alex Kronemer (CNN Hajj Coverage), UPF produces films, Hollywood engagement and dialogue campaigns aimed to increase understanding and foster dialogue among the world’s spiritual traditions with a focus on American – Muslim relations.

The page includes the tagline:

Reminder: Campaign Season is September 1 to December 15.

The CFC is part of the Combined Federal Campaign. Its federal workers.

The mission of the CFC is to promote and support philanthropy through a program that is employee focused, cost-efficient, and effective in providing all federal employees the opportunity to improve the quality of life for all.

Once again, I'd like to ignore conspiracy theorists. I think its healthy to.
But my government is making the conspiracy theorists look rationale.

Obama on The View?

Yup. That's about right.

Britain de-centralizes health care

As the US goes full bore into heatlh care socialization, England is backing away from that train wreck. From the NY Times of all places:

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.
Huh. I wonder why that is?

Okay, we all know why it is. Because as soon as the government becomes involved, things get dumb expensive.

Not that Harry Reid cares about this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeking to console liberal activists who were disappointed by the final version of the national health care law, assured them that there would eventually be a public option.

Yep. We all knew that... right? We knew it was coming?
Look, the word Boondoggle will have to be redefined if this ever goes into full effect. Please, not for my sake. Not even for your sake. For your children's sake, stop this dumb thing.

To me, this whole argument about health care is like two people arguing over whether a house is properly painted. One person jumps to the conclusion that the house is horribly ruined, and sets a torch to it.
That's what's about to happen to our health care system.

IRS Health care powers

The Wall Street Journal recently wrote an article covering the new things that the IRS can do connected with health care:

Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.

But... I thought that was debunked by the left, when they said that the IRS would not be involved...?

Black Panthers, as covered by the American Prospect

Adam Serwer is a blogger on the American Prospect website. As someone who blogs about Civil Rights, Adam decided to throw himself headfirst into the whole Black Panther controversy.

Of course, instead of focusing on the Civil Rights case, the one that the Obama administration won and subsequently decided to reduce the charges on, Adam instead decided to focus on the criminal charges:

This means that the case was downgraded to a civil case 11 days before Obama was inaugurated, 26 days before Eric Holder became attorney general, and about nine months before Thomas Perez was confirmed as head of the Civil Rights Division

Go read the article. Then read the update:

So, I just wanted to clear something up: I wrote my post yesterday about the Justice Department's decision not to pursue criminal charges against the NBPP during the Bush administration because I had seen conservatives arguing that it was made by the Obama administration. It wasn't. I did not mean to suggest that the civil case, which the DoJ dropped in May of last year after receiving a preliminary injunction against the only NBPP member in Philadelphia who was walking around with a baton, was dismissed during the Bush administration. I apologize if any of my writing has been unclear on this point or any confusion has resulted because I misstated the accusation of who wanted the criminal case dismissed.

I haven't seen one conservative arguing about the criminal complaints, so I followed the links above to the Media Matter's article. Media Matters has O'Reilly talking to two legal analysts who both complain that they have no idea why criminal complaints were not pursued.

But the bulk of the story is why the civil suit was dropped after they won.

Getting back to Adam;
The comments pretty much say it all, but Adam had to 'update' his blog several times. It finally got to the point where he had to issue this blog.
Now I have to give Adam partial credit. In his original post, he does talk about the civil case.
However, its clear to me that he was trying to muddy the waters by talking about the criminal case. As I mentioned before, O'Reilly was the only one I heard talking about the criminal case, and only in that clip that Media Matters focused on.

The tagline of the American Prospect is "Liberal Intelligence". Skipping past the obvious oxymoron, I wish that the Prospect and Adam would adhere to their tagline.

Nomination: Most misrepresentation, ever

Media Matters has, on previous occasions, left me dumbfounded in their dishonesty.

But today, they deserve a special award for duping their own people.

Currently, this timeline is being used by liberals to argue that Fox News was instrumental in the firing of Sherrod by airing the edited video.
There's only one problem with that. Media Matters own timeline shows that Fox did not air the video until after Sherrod resigned.

So why is their confusion? Well, its like this: Media Matters is using the FoxNation website (an electronic BBS) and making it the equivalent of Fox News coverage.

You don't have to believe me. Go visit the timeline for yourself. See what impression you are left with. Then delve into the details of it.

Life expectancy, and infant mortality

Two lies came out during the health care debate that I want to make sure are addressed, regarding our health care:
1) We have a rapidly declining life expectancy
2) Our infant mortality rate is horrible compared to other countries

1) We do not have a rapidly declining life expectancy.
That was an outright lie produced during the health care debate by those who wanted universal health care. Don't believe me?
Here is a chart.

The argument has been, for a while now, that the US is 'lagging' behind other countries in life expectancy... which is party true: other countries don't kill each other as much as we do in the US. We have a much higher rate of homicide then other countries.
The irony is that we also have much more self-destructive habits then most other countries. The more prosperous a country, the more ways we come up with to kill ourselves. For instance, drugs. Cars. Not to mention skateboarding down a railing. The point is that sometimes, people become so prosperous that they actually do bad things to themselves. We're at that point.

2) Our rates of infant mortality can be found here, and the chart allows you to compare it to other countries.

Now I know you've heard (again) that we lag behind other countries... and that is also true. However, again, it doesn't tell you why:
Differing definitions of infant mortality, fertility treatments, drug use, and young women having babies.

I found this out after a long search on the web. The first problem is that not every country defines infant mortality the same. Some countries describe a child who is stillborn as an infant mortality, while others don't describe the child as being born at all.
The second problem is that it turns out that premature babies tend not to live long. That leads me to the other three reasons...
Fertility Treatments: We literally create babies that would normally not make it to term. They get born prematurely, and thus (unfortunately) have a high infant mortality rate.
Drug use: creates babies with harmed immunity systems
Young women: have premature babies at a much higher rate. See above.

I understand that these are hard things to look up. Honest, it took me a while. But I hate that there were people in charge, who knew better, who used these as arguments to why our health care was 'inferior'. It had nothing to do with our health care. Those were dishonest arguments from the start.