How the Washington Post Survives: (Hint) Government subsidies

Not direct subsidies of course, but just the same, without them the paper would fold. What I'm talking about is a wholly owned subsidiary called Kaplan University. Kaplan is for-profit university similar to Capella University and the University of Phoenix with most of its 66,000 students studying online. The Washington Post bought Kaplan a decade ago in what now looks like an incredibly shrewd move. Kaplan accounted for 58 percent of the company's revenue — and it was profitable. In contrast, newspaper and magazine publishing accounted for only 19 percent of revenue, and those activities lost money. Barron's reports that the Washington Post Co. is worth about $8.5 billion — and $5 billion of that value is from Kaplan.

So, one of the country's most influential newspapers survives and Kaplan educates thousands, what could possibly be wrong with that?

Critics claim Kaplan operates vocational training programs that over enroll students using Federal loans that leave low-income student indebted and unemployed. A quick search online and one can easily find hundreds upon hundreds of complaints lodged against Kaplan for financial abuse and impropriety regarding student billing practices. Also, Kaplan is known to market directly to black single mothers with three children or more - that is what the training manuals for their telemarketers actually instruct them to do - as this is the demographic which defaults at the highest rate. Not coincidentally, they have one of the highest default rates of any such university, only about thirty percent of their enrollees actually earn a degree. Yet they still collect the full amount from the federal government. This is what is said to keep the Washington Post afloat.

With the Post Co. raking in the kind of money they get from an operation like this, you begin to understand that the newspaper is a mere sideline - a tax write-off. It's all a bit unseemly for a reputable guardian of the people - "the press" to operate an outfit like this. Some of this is just coming to light in the last few years as reports that their training manual's also directs their telemarketers to target returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets, because, basically, they're dupes with lots of government benefits to drain. It's been alleged more money, real estate, and staff are directed to their telemarketing operations, than to their actual educational faculty and operations. The allegations have some weight. "If you look at some of the reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, you will see that the advertising budget is immense … on par and even sometimes exceeding the instructional costs of the institution," says David Hawkins, director of public policy and research at the National Association for College Admission Counseling.

There have been official investigations into specific Kaplan programs and like any operation with vested interest in getting government money they have deflected, obfuscated and misled their students and the government. In 2007 the Department of Education (DOE) began looking into the allegations of Title IV fraud on behalf of Kaplan. Suddenly, in late 2008, SurgeTech program curiously disappeared from Kaplan’s degree offerings even though it was one of the college’s most popular programs.  At the time the program vanished we now know state accrediting agencies were threatening to withdraw accreditation.

The program in question, one of their most profitable disappeared overnight. Interesting. Why? It seems that Kaplan knowingly, over a ten year period, misled by omission, prospective students, their accrediting body, and the U.S. DOE causing the government to approve tens of millions of dollars of Title IV student loans for a program that students would be unable to finish. All this based upon false data.

Meanwhile Kaplan, and their investors and shareholders skated to the bank on government subsidies and the Washington Post conveniently concealed the story.
The university system, both private and public have become a massive special interest group, whose actual interest is the government student loan gravy train. They overwhelmingly support Democrats and liberals who promise more and more government spending on "higher education". With one of the most important newspapers in the nation involved at this level we can be assured that reporting on abuse of the financial aid system will be squelched.

Guardians of the people huh, keeping the government honest. Yeah. But who is going to keep them honest?


CW

Media Bias:They can't help themselves PART II

It's way too early to let the nascent presidential race dominate this space. After the conventions, well, that will be another story. (OK, OK, nascent is a misnomer, there is nothing nascent about it. Neither Obama nor Romney have stopped campaigning since 2008). Still, it's hard to let certain things pass without comment.

In this The Atlantic "Wire" story we have claims that the mainstream media is not, I repeat, not in the tank for President Obama. The proof is the number of negative stories about the President compared to Mitt Romney over the same period. For one, Obama is the incumbent and has a record, a bad one at that, and Romney was the most moderate, least controversial candidate among a field of scoundrels, fools and radicals competing in a party endorsement process.

Measuring a story for positive or negative treatment of a candidate is dicey at best. Many of the negative Obama stories are of the devil's advocate type. Where the reporter or commentator will spill the argument against the president while the dripping condescension and utter dismissiveness is palatable. Usually the end of the story will portray the President as above it all.

What I see clearly is the combative attitude of the President's mainstream media supporters. That attitude is on full display when a Romney supporter is being questioned. The inquisitions are confrontational, the questions tough and the answers already concluded. The job of the interviewer is always to get the Romney guy to end up admitting something unflattering about the candidate. If at first they fail they twist and turn the question until they get what they want. Sometimes I'm embarrassed for the reporter and can't image other viewers/listeners are not also taken aback by the confrontational tone. The same is almost never true when questioning an Obama guy.

So, by golly, these guys can cite statistics all they want, but intent and nuance is almost never measured in raw numbers. Heads up to the Mainstream Media: No amount of cheer leading - or kid gloves - will help if the economy is this bad or even worse by October.


CW

Is the media fastly becoming furious?

Don't count on it.

The "Fast and Furious" gun running scandal that should be plaguing the Obama administration on a daily basis is languishing behind dog eating stories and 7-11 cookies. Try to imagine if this had been the Bush administration's Justice Department. It would be pounded out every day on the TV news until Attorney General Gonzalez resigned in disgrace. Not so much with Eric Holder.

The program essentially allowed a massive amount of firepower walk across the Mexican border presumably to be tracked by ATF officials with the goal of leading them to drug cartel strongholds. What happened was a tragedy that has left hundreds of innocents dead, slaughtered with American guns as the program went wildly off the rails.

Holder has been playing dumb on this subject even after documents came to light showing that the “Fast and Furious” program came up several times during Holder’s extensive weekly reports on ongoing developments in the Justice Department and its components in July 2010 and again in October 2010. He had testified on May 3 2011 that he was “not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

It's not that Eric Holder is a liar, he is, then so was Gonzalez and every partisan appointee that ever served in a town that peddles lies like a toddler pedals a trike. It's that the media makes so little of it because it could hurt President Obama's re-election bid. Besides it's just so darn complicated - the American people just won't get it. Simpletons...

At least CBS has made an attempt. NBC is so far up Obama's... Um, sorry. Let's just say NBC and ABC aren't going to try too hard.

CBS News requested numerous public documents through the Freedom of Information Act.

So far, all of the requests that have been answered have been denied in part or in full.

This week, we received a partial response to a request made more than a year ago. It asked for communications involving "Project Gunrunner," the umbrella program for Fast and Furious, from 2010 through April 2011. Specifically, it sought any communications to which any of the following top Justice officials were a party: Attorney General Eric Holder; Lanny Breuer, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division; Kevin Carwile, chief of the Capital Case Unit; and Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals Bruce Schwarz and Kenneth Blanco.

The response includes mostly-blank pages.
See the nearly-blank provided to CBS News (PDF)
Federal agencies can legally claim exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act for a number of reasons including attorney-client privilege, law enforcement purposes, and personal privacy. However, they've fallen under sharp criticism from the media and public interest groups in the past decade as a large number of FOIA requests have languished, sometimes for years.
FOIA was originally intended to expedite the release of public materials to the public and media. However, in practice, FOIA requests are often not even marginally effective at obtaining documents for news reporting. To be most effective and helpful, the requests would often need to be filled in a matter of days or at least weeks.

Few requests filed by this reporter are answered within a year. When and if documents are ever produced, they are often heavily redacted and the timeliness of the information relative to the public interest has long since subsided.

Separately the FBI has denied CBS News all information requested regarding the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Two Fast and Furious weapons were found at his murder scene in December 2010. The FBI stated that the information was withheld because the murder investigation is ongoing. That investigation has now entered its second year.

It was the death of Brian Terry that put this in front of the American people and yet the FBI and the Justice Department is stonewalling the entire independent media investigation.CBS News should be applauded in this case. All the complaining I tend to do about the selective interest of the major media I have to give CBS it's due this time.

Then again don't count on CBS to raise the roof over this one. They're for Obama too.




CW

Mr. Kettle and Mr. Pot

Undoubtedly I will be commenting on the 2012 Presidential race as the campaigns move along. I will not be voting for Barack Obama, since I find not one single redeeming value in his person or his Presidency (other than he appears to be a good husband and father, kudos for that). So, Mitt Romney will get my enthusiastic support. At this time I just wanted to add a quick comment on a narrative I see forming that just smacks of transparent hypocrisy.

Hearing liberal commentators coaching Mitt Romney on genuineness, stating that he should embrace his wealth and success instead of pretending to be an 'every man' wearing jeans and flannel shirts and talking to factory workers and housewives. By stooping to this obvious ploy when he can't possibly relate to the peon's he comes off as a fake - or so they say. I would say to Mitt don't take advice from a used car salesman on good character.

(and if he embraces his wealth he will be crucified, of course)

These people support a man who will not come clean on any aspect of his life. To this day 6 years under the spotlight the media has still not vetted Barack Obama. Only after numerous lawsuits and pressure from a famous billionaire icon did he release a birth certificate, a certificate many believe to be fake anyway. He won't release his educational transcripts, he won't explain his relationships with communist sympathizers or domestic terrorists. His Social Security number is in question. His passport and travel as a young man is in question. His student funding as a foreign student is not being examined. His associations with socialist (and communist) organizations are swept under the rug. But what's worse is that a genuine scandal that reaches to the upper ranks of his administration is being largely ignored - the gun running Fast and Furious scandal.

Almost nothing he has done is examined with a fine tooth comb by this adoring media - as has been the case with every administration since Nixon's.

Yet, it's Mitt Romney who is the fake? Romney has been successful at everything he's done. He is a man who fixes things. From what I've read he is a roll up the sleeves, take charge kind of guy. His character is not in question. He is rich and that's the problem. How dare he be rich and successful. John Kerry was rich, John Edwards was rich, but that didn't matter they were Democrats, they understand the little guy when Romney can never hope to.

Talk about the pot and kettle...


CW

Apple is rich, yeah so...

America's most valuable company in a mid-March statement underscored a truth that is lost on so many Americans. Our corporate tax code (in fact our entire tax code) is insane. The inability of American corporations to repatriate offshore profits has become a major impediment for doing business job creation  here at home. Apple Computer is going to keep $65 billion out of the U.S. to avoid surrendering a ridiculous amount of it in taxes.

Today corporate cash held in foreign accounts would be subject to the 35% corporate tax rate if it was transferred into U.S. accounts. These days it's not unusual for American corporations to make 50% or more of their revenue outside of the U.S. This is a good thing. Companies that haven't expanded outside the U.S. are eventually going to be overrun by their competition.

Apple had accumulated over $90 billion in cash. Good corporate governance compelled the company to disburse some of this money to share holders, reinvest in it's own stock or invest the money in growing the company. Whatever... Clearly current law stopped the majority of this cash from being put in play here in the U.S.

Apple along with Cisco, Microsoft and Oracle and others have been pushing for this overseas cash to come home with a tax holiday  The fact that the Obama Administration and many members of Congress are opposed to a "tax holiday" is beside the point. The current law is bad and needs to be changed. It simply makes no sense keeping this money from coming into the U.S. economy. There's no rational reason hold this money at bay. The liberals and their "rich get richer while the poor get poorer" argument are being anything but rational. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich - they're poor because they haven't got a job. This is not a tax break for the wealthy, it's an impediment for our homegrown corporations from doing more business here. No other country does anything this counter-productive, none.

If you asked the average person on the street about this they would either be ignorant of it or believe that the government ought to stick it to these rich corporations. People getting their beliefs fed to them by media sound bites and Occupy Wall Street protest signs won't be persuaded that taxing corporations like this is a real problem. But the rest of us need to open our eyes. We can't let masked envy or the false rhetoric of fairness sway us into accepting something that is clearly wrong.

When you hear this being defended as a way to keep companies from using loopholes and special breaks to pay little or no taxes then it's time to call them on it. Year after year legislation is introduced to kill all tax loopholes, special incentives and breaks while significantly reducing corporate tax rates as a way to broaden the base, and year after year these bills go nowhere. It's not that they're bad bills or that it isn't the wise and prudent thing to do. It's that some large companies and self interested politicians like things the way they are. It's that simple.

Too often this is the case. The right thing is shoved aside because a few well connected have powerful friends in the right places. Take health care reform for example. Everyone knows that one simple change in the law would bring down the cost of health insurance overnight - and I mean everyone knows this. If the government would allow health insurance companies to sell policies across state lines the new competition would begin to drive costs down immediately. Health systems, hospitals and doctors would quickly get their cost structures in line with the new reality. We know healthy competition is good for costs and for quality. The car insurance business have never been as competitive and as affordable as it is now that these companies can sell insurance to any American, anywhere - and it is still a highly regulated business.

Yet, what we got was a top down solution that removes competition and introduces the specter of total government dictation over health care policy across the board. Yes, in theory it is still a private health care system, but without competition and diversity it might as well be a government entity once everything is a government decree.

As with the tax system, there are players in the health care business and their cronies in elective office that like things the way they are (or where they are headed) so the right thing is once again shoved aside.

I'm not saying it's like snapping your fingers and the structural problems are fixed, but a few rational and relatively simple changes would go a long way to getting things upright. It is cronyism and the special interests of the few that skew righteousness and feed the cynicism that engulfs Americans today. It doesn't have to be this way.

In a weird cosmic twist this is exactly what the Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party protesters have been saying. One says it's the corporations and their filthy rich political cronies that are the problem and the other says it the government and their unscrupulous corporate cronies that are the problem. They're both right!!!



CW

Tolerant of Intolerance, or Not

Watching the celebrities (clips) on E! last night as they regaled in the splendor of the theatrical reading of "8" was just precious. Indeed, "8" is the play that uses the actual transcript of the hearing on California's Prop 8.  These A-List celebrities are all so enlightened and tolerant - and beautiful. Martin Sheen declares "this is such an important issue, it was thrilling to be a part of it". The issue is of course gay marriage and the constitutional clause Californian's inserted as a way of getting around the state legislature by constitutionally declaring marriage is between one man and one woman. California allows for civil unions, but that, of course, is not good enough. Whatever.

The thing that struck me was some actress declaring that Kirk Cameron, also and actor, has no right having a differing opinion. She has no tolerance for intolerance. Yes, of course it's a circular argument. No matter, you just can't have a different opinion when it comes to gay issues. It will, in one way or the other, destroy you. Gay issues are the absolute pinnacle of PC which places tolerance above all else. Hollywood if nothing else is PC - when it suits them.

Personally, I don't give a damn about gay this or homosexual that. Live and let live. I doubt gay individuals choose their proclivities. If and when the gay marriage issue appears on a ballot before me I will not cast a vote one way or the other. They are what they are. I've got nothing to say about it.

I don't like the ultra pushy types (on any issue really) and the insistence that you can't say one thing about any of "their" issues that is one iota out of line with their agenda or you are an intolerant homophobe that must be destroyed. I find that rather intolerant and frankly a load of crap.

Their is evil intent on both sides of gay issues, and I am choosing not to aid evil. You can't live in this modern world without facing evil situations and even participating however peripherally in evil machinations, but you can choose to not be the devil's helpmate. Steering clear of these debates is best way to thwart the enemy.


CW

Morning Joe on MS(nob)NBC

I get up early every morning mainly because I take at least 2 hours to "wake up" before I can actually function. Others I know get up singing, all full of joy and hope for the coming day. These people rattle off fifteen things I need to do or check on today before I've even poured my first cup of essential juice - coffee. They are lucky to get two words out of me, namely, uh and huh.

So, as you might imagine I plop down in front of the TV with the clicker and rotate through the cable news channels. I'll start with Fox and Friends if I'm in the mood for goofy. I'll pop over to CNN and to see which oh so serious news program they are airing this month. CNN has some sort of revolving door in their studio A because the host(s) never seem to last very long. It's very odd.

I then swing over to CNBC for the business news which I often find the most informative news I'll see all day. Plus, I love the daily Obama bashing from the business leaders, it's very cathartic. If I'm in the mood for beauty I'll hit Headline News and watch Robin for a while. Oddly I never really take notice of the news... Eventually I'll punch 70 on the remote. That's where we find Morning Joe up in these parts.

MSNBC is the anti-Fox channel. Everyone knows this. Those who hate Fox generally love MSNBC. In order for the operators of the anti-Fox network to feign balance they put up a show that features an ex-republican congressman, Joe Scarborough. It takes roughly 2 minutes of listening to him to invoke nausea. I am quite certain the phrase "are you still taking" was coined because of him. He's an impolite blowhard that talks and talks but says absolutely nothing. Even when he says something you might agree with you still feel like slugging the guy. 

His co-host Mika Brzezinski, a liberal apologist and Democratic Party stooge, barely gets a word in edgewise. Believe me you're not missing much - she rarely says anything even slightly off script, but she is a human being deserving of respect and the time to have her say. Joe, however, talks over her continuously to the point where you see the wind taken out of sails and she gives up. I often wonder if she's there for atheistic value only as she is quite good looking. Occasionally she gets 20 seconds to complete a sentence (because Joe is momentarily distracted) and her political shallowness and in-the-know snobbery is revealed.

As bad as these two are it's the rotation of regulars that starts to get to you after a while. The anti-Fox crowd really thinks this show is sophisticated and thoughtful as opposed to the knuckle dragging and mouth breathing over on Fox. What they are is a cadre of snobs. Even the so-called conservatives they allow in the studio are there because they will mock or denigrate conservative, religious or fly-over country values. If these conservatives stray from the allowed guidelines they are summarily banished.

We never see Patrick Buchanan on the show anymore. Buchanan served his purpose during the Bush years because he was highly critical of the Bushes - Sr. and Jr. At some point he strayed, said something that roiled the waters and he is gone. Mark Halprin, a left leaning journalist (aren't they all) once said something slightly critical of Obama when he believed they were off the air and he was banished for months.

It isn't even what is actually discussed, dissected and beaten to death on the show that betrays the snobbish devotion to leftist elitism, it's also what is ignored. Rarely have I heard a word about the serious scandals this administration is involved in even in passing. The gun running scandal called Fast and Furious would put Watergate to shame in scale and outcome. If it had happened under Bush it would have been a daily topic. The apologetic devotion to liberal sensibilities even when all evidence would indicate failure is jaw dropping. Then Joe himself gets to riffing on one of these subjects (it is his show after all) and in slightly over 2 minutes you feel like throwing up.

There are three regulars that if I see any of them I instantly hit the back button on the remote. As nauseating as Joe Scarborough is these three make me convulse uncontrollably. Al Sharpton is obvious, even his mother is repulsed. It is Donny Deutsch and Eugene Robinson that literally make me sick. Robinson in particular is an abhorrent little man so blinded by his leftist elitism and race-bating ideology that every word from his lips is 180 degrees out of whack.

To be fair, every once in a while - particularly when Joe and Mika are out - that the show is actually informative. They do have interesting guests that are allowed to stray form the liberal elitist playbook. Of course these same guests show up at Fox too. It can be fun to gauge the mood of the liberals by watching them say slightly critical of - actually it is confusion over - Obama administration foibles. Make no mistake, by the time November 2012 comes around Barack Obama will again be walking on water on the Morning Joe show!


CW

Say it aint Joe...

If there ever was a modern day real life John Wayne the sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona is him. Joe Arpaio is the no nonsense lawman who has taken the political correctness out of law enforcement  - and now he has to pay the price.

The U.S. Justice Department released a scathing report saying that the sheriff and his staff have violated the human rights of illegal aliens, accusing Arpaio of violating the constitution. Arpaio has 30 days to respond or face Federal charges against him and members of his staff.

I think this could backfire on Obama's Justice Department. Sheriff Arpaio is perhaps the best known sheriff in the country precisely because of his no nonsense, common sense approach to the overwhelming invasion of illegals from Mexico into his jurisdiction. Furthermore the timing of this seems more than just a coincidence coming on the heals of the U.S. Supreme court agreeing to hear the Federal case against Arizona's immigration and border enforcement law.

Could this be designed as a distraction? The Justice Department is fiendishly fending off questions about the incredible scandal known as Fast and Furious. This is the scandal where the ATF (a law enforcement dept. under Justice) has been shown to have created a program to sell guns explicitly designed to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels for very specious purposes. In the aftermath those very same guns have been implicated in the death of thousands of Mexicans and at least one U.S. Border Patrol agent, namely Agent Brian Terry.

This scandal, which makes Watergate look like a game of paddy cake, is getting very little press attention. No one died at Watergate except the presidency of Richard Nixon. Here thousands are dead and the press has totally insulated Obama since the very beginning. You don't hear about this from  Morning Joe and Mika, nope. Not a word from Chrissy Mathews either. Tom Freidman isn't writing about in the Times and Brian Williams doesn't mention on the nightly news. But if it had been George Bush's Justice Department, well...

Back to Joe.

The good sheriff has had the ire of the progressives who long for open borders for quite some time, but the timing of this just ahead of the political season can be seen as another attempt to rally the president's Hispanic base.  To portray border security advocates as racist and anti-Latino is just another way to drive a wedge into his continuous campaign to Balkanize the United States. Obama and his lackeys have never been 'uniters'. They have no intention of bringing Americans together, theirs is always to divide and conquer. Those who stand up for law and order and enforcing the very laws the constitution requires the Federal government to act upon are somehow unlawful and have to be stopped. I don't know... Maybe America will rally behind Joe.

I'd bet that Sheriff Joe is more popular than President Obama.


CW

Legal Graft and other Games

The new book "Throw Them All Out" by Peter Schweizer hits the shelves today. Schweizer has written many good books in the investigative journalism vein over the years, but this one strikes chord with me (after reading a few reviews).

One of the biggest unheard of, unseen scandals in American politics is festering. Will we get the full story of the inside game in DC that shows how the elite political class enriches itself at the expense of the rest of us, while driving our economy into the ground? Do we even want to know? Or does playing ostrich suit us just fine?

It's not new, it's not partisan and it's apparently not illegal, but it is disgusting and morally bankrupt. We have all watched as a nearly 800 billion dollar stimulus package became a funnel to supporters and benefactors, ensuring yet more campaign donations for Obama and the Democrats. We've seen the husbands of Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstien get lucrative deals based on their wives influential positions. John Kerry seems to always come out smelling like a rose with his investments. Republicans are no better, I imagine Bob Dole was not always a very wealthy man, but he was a Senator for a century, right? I mean hasn't Rick Perry done the same thing in Austin Texas? DC has become a profit center for the permanent ruling class and those that support them. They use the government to tilt the playing field in their favor with little regard for the country as a whole.

In her Indianola, Iowa speech last summer Sarah Palin said these same things and the country re-hit the snooze button, and we probably will again in 2012. While there has been a lot of condemnation of Wall Street and fat cat bankers (as well as greedy businessmen) it just misses the boat entirely. It's the ruling class that sets the rules and the rules just aren't going to favor the poor and the middle class. All the more evidence that the Occupy Wall Street uprising needs to move their tents to Washington, D.C. That's home base for people who are really gaming (read: effing up) the system.

In the book’s introduction, Schweizer refers the phenomenon that is the subject of Throw Them All Out "The Government Rich". Yes, these are the same people who are "fighting" for you! Makes you feel empowered, right? These politicians arrive in Washington as people of modest means and somehow become very rich. These elected jobs receive generous pay, but nothing exorbitant. The Government Rich, Schweizer writes, insider deals, insider trading, and taxpayer money have become a pathway to wealth. They walk this exclusive pathway because they get to operate by a different set of rules from the rest of us. Schweizer calls the means by which these politicians achieve wealth honest graft i.e., abuse of their office for personal gain and it's not illegal.

What bothers me more is the attitude of the average citizen. It's either - whataya gonna do? or - boys will be boys, that's how the game is played. Perhaps throwing the bums out will accomplish nothing, Washington will simply corrupt the next batch. Eventually an ethical chap will rise to the top and shame will return as a behavior modifier, right? Am I dreaming?

To think it was not going on when the country was in its ascendancy is maybe naive, but now while we decline it's like rubbing salt in the wound. They probably laugh at the rubes that vote them in time and again and especially at those who put $10 or $50 in an envelope for them. These guys and gals tell us they are fighting for us (the newbies probably believe they are). After a few terms and many flattering (lucrative) meetings with lobbyists and their party bosses they're all playing the game.

Whataya gonna do?


CW
 

A gun to the head...

I don't want to turn this forum, meager as it may be, into a routine tirade against President Obama, but this latest one can't go unnoticed.

During the aftermath of the Tuscon shootings last winter where Rep. Gabrielle Gifford was severely injured by a crazed gunman we were all treated to an excoriation of Sarah"gun toting"Palin and all conservative talkers. We were to understand that it was incendiary violent language that had caused marginally sane people to go on shooting rampages. The debate that followed became all about Sarah Palin who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

Palin had "targeted" Gifford's re-election race as winnable for the Republicans and therefore she and she alone was responsible for this tragedy. We all know that war analogy's are rarely ever used in political campaigns (pun intended).

When I was listening to coverage of President Obama's electronic town hall and heard him utter the phrase - - "the debt ceiling should not be used as a gun against the heads of Americans to retain breaks for corporate jet owners or oil and gas companies"- - I was a little stunned.

The imagery was simple - Republicans were threatening to put a bullet in the head of Americans by not capitulating to Obama. A rather violent picture.

So I waited for the storm of outrage over a politician using such violent and incendiary language. Crickets. Doing a Google search - maybe it was Bing- I found a few odd mentions and no outrage at all. Here and here.

Yeah, you're not going hear any feigned outrage. Why didn't the conservative punditry make hay with this? Because it would be stupid, disingenuous tripe. I mention it only to prove that the media in general, so bent on destroying Sarah Palin was unrestrained and gleeful to have such a grenade to throw at her. Calling out Mr. Obama would be counterproductive to their goals.

So here goes: Shame on you President Obama, I'm outraged that you would use such violent and incendiary imagery.



CW

Undue Credit?

In the post immediately preceding this one I credited the President with making a tough and dangerous decision. Well hold on there...

While I watched only a little of his 9 minute announcement - seeing clips on subsequent news broadcasts as well - I was struck by how many I's, me's, and mine's were used by a confident President Obama. This is his natural MO, but in this case it seemed, perhaps, justified. Not so fast.

After reading this article on Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs website a different picture emerges that begins to show the true picture of a tentative, nervous "undecider" rather than the confident I, me, mine man standing before the cameras and the world last Sunday night.

The following is the jist of it - and if true my opinion of President Obama has, if possible, sunk even further...

RE: Osama Bin Laden. Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate.
Now Intel already leaking to media facts surrounding how info obtained. Namely from enhanced interrogation efforts via GITMO prisoners. Obama administration placed in corner on this. Some media aware of danger to president RE this and attempting protection. Others looking for further investigation. We are pushing for them to follow through and already meeting with some access.

Point of determination made FOR Obama not BY Obama. Will clarify as details become more clear. Very clear divide between Military and WH. Jarrett marginalized 100% on decision to take out OBL. She played no part. BD worked with LP and HC to form coalition to force CoC to engage.

IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate.

Independent military contacts have confirmed. Stories corroborate one another. This is legit.

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within Obama WH.



This story is far from over!



CW

Political Correctness Inspected

If there is one thing we can point to as the cause of the precipitous decline of Western Civilization it is the rise to supremacy of Political Correctness. PC is so much more than just the speech police. It first hit my radar decades ago as simple speech correction by self assigned entities of virtue who would call out those who didn't tow the line. One can remember Howard Cossell crying out "look at that monkey run!" when calling a Monday Night Football game as a black, err, I mean African American, no, no, I mean black player made a mad dash to the goal line. (Ironically, as a person who loathes political correctness I just felt compelled to stop myself from using a rational and descriptive word in favor of the politically acceptable term, interesting to say the least...) Anyway, by the time this incident occurred and Howard Cossell had been publically chastised the foundation for political correctness was already firmly entrenched.

Today no one can or does deny that Political Correctness exists and that it holds tremendous power in its exercise. Yet, everyone claims to hate it. Liberals and conservatives, the young and the old, the rich and the poor all claim to hate what PCism has done to rational discourse in our society. What or who gives it such power?

PC has found it's home inside the bureaucracies of Western Civilization. Political Correctness is the natural child of communism and socialism, all seeking to downgrade the individual in favor of the collective. It shouldn't come as a surprise since communism and socialism are themselves the children of Western Civilization. In a communist utopia the the elites and the common man would be subsumed into the collective, eventually becoming indistinguishable. This we know instinctively to be impossible. It is thought that Political Correctness was conjured up as a tool of the elites to strip the masses of their individualism while maintaining their hold on the upper reaches of society. According to the scholar Bruce Charlton, PC's ultimate goal is the destruction of what it means to be human...

excerpt from:
Bruce Charlton's Miscellany "Political correctness cannot be explained by selfishness among the elite" (hat tip to Al Fin)

...the culture of atheistic, leftism - which is now PC - stripped away the basic toolkit of assumptions with which humans were born into the world. So the culture of radicalism rapidly made humans helpless in the face of reality; took pre-designed people - created for this world - and made them into (psychologically) formless blobs.

The hope behind this was that formless blobs would be amenable to re-programming - and indeed they are (many of them). But, in an unreal world, what to reprogram them with?

The formless blob humans created by PC deprogramming are being filled with the highest thing known to PC; which is impersonal abstract altruism; they are being filled with the idea that the highest goal a human can aim-at is to impose upon human behaviours an abstractly virtuous system which does not depend on individual humans, does not require moral humans, does not need human choice - human agency.

*
At a deep level, PC has become a program to destroy humanity (destroy not the physical form of humans, but destroy their agency, freedom, choice etc) - and this is not seen as a bad thing to do, since humans are intrinsically selfish animals, and therefore the highest imaginable thing in the PC world is an abstract system which shares-out 'goods' despite what humans might feel about it. Of course PC cannot justify that imposing a system of altruism is objectively a valid endeavor. Because no endeavors are valid. There is no valid positive goal for PC - it is negative and reactive against our spontaneous perception of selfishness/ injustice/ corruptibility.

PC is therefore always working-towards - and if it ever actually arrives and achieves its goal, then it will collapse from its internal contradictions. That collapse might still leave humans enslaved to abstract systems of altruism, but the humans so enslaved would no longer be politically correct.
:END excerpt

If we take Mr. Charlton's definition and break it down the true hideousness of PC comes into focus.

From Merriam-Webster.com

impersonal adj \(ˌ)im-ˈpərs-nəl, -ˈpər-sə-nəl\
2. b : not engaging the human personality or emotions c : not existing as a person : not having human qualities or characteristics

ab·stract adj \ab-ˈstrakt, ˈab-ˌ\
1. a : disassociated from any specific instance b : difficult to understand : abstruse c : insufficiently factual : formal

al·tru·ism noun \ˈal-trü-ˌi-zəm\
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Reading these definitions one thing is perfectly clear, there is no place for individuals, or individual freedom in the world of political correctness. Is it any wonder Political Correctness is so destructive to a nation like the United States where individual liberty is actually a right.

If Charlton is right Political Correctness will (eventually) collapse of it's own weight, but not before it takes out entire societies and civilizations. Currently many liberal causes and passions use political correctness as a bludgeon. It's used as a poison in the court of public opinion against its enemies, rendering entire rational arguments invalid by virtue of a slip of the tongue. Their day will come, hypocrisy eventually reaches critical mass and the unequal application of the "poison" on only right of center transgressors will no longer stand.

How do we fight political correctness? This is an enemy without a focal point, there is no army, no king, no central command. It exists primarily in the bureaucracies, halls of academia and the popular media all of which have the power to influence and cast aspersions. We can work outside these institutions as much as possible. We can teach our children to think for themselves. We can start to develop alternate institutions such as home schooling or the Tea Party-like movements. We can fight the media by disabusing ourselves from its perceived power. We can play the game without losing ourselves and use political correctness as a rope to hang the left every time they slip up. The time has come to fight fire with fire.




CW

How Dare You...

Democrats Intentionally Scare the Public Into Believing That Republicans Want to Destroy Social Security

But who has really destroyed Social Security and who actually wants to save it? When I read these bullet points sent to me by a good friend I was stunned. Stunned not because of what the Democrats have actually done, I would put nothing past them, but rather that they are successfully painting Republican plans to rescue SS as stealth destroyers. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has seen even his Republican brethren shy away in the face of the assault by the left on his thoughtful and reasonable plans to save the system.

That you Democrats intentionally lie to cover what you have actually done to Social Security is a travesty. How dare you!

Here are the facts:

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, Participation is no longer voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, Now we pay 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government (which has already been taxed) to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:

6.) Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

7.) Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

8.) Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

9.) Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

There you have it - facts that paint the Democrats as the liars they are.

The worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe Republicans are hell bent on destroying what the Democrats have already decimated. Yes, we live in an upside down world.

CW

Pretzel Logic, Pelosi Logic

I heard Speaker Pelosi on Public Radio the other day and was so bewildered by her logic that I just had to share.

Start with the fact that the tax cuts being discussed are already in place and that the discussion is all about extending them as is, no one is actually getting their taxes cut by one red cent. In other words if they do get extended our paychecks will look no different tomorrow than they do today. OK.

So Pelosi says if the tax cut for "the rich" is extended it will add seven-hundred-and-eighty-billion-dollars to the deficit.

The commentator deftly points out that if the tax cut for the middle class is extended it would remove 4 trillion dollars from the Federal revenue stream over the same period of time.

Nancy says: but there's a difference, that money would be spent, turned back into the economy and create jobs.

Commentator: Ok, but wouldn't the 780 billion be turned back into the economy as well, and create jobs?

Nancy: Well, as we can see by the state of the economy today and how the record surpluses became record deficits during the previous eight years that it hasn't worked.

I feel like I just listened to a Yogi Berra skit. So which part of it hasn't worked Nancy? Is it the 780 billion or the 4 trillion? It's not as if the middle class will suddenly have an additional 4 trillion to spend, they will have exactly what they have today and what they have today has produced no real economic growth and 9.6% unemployment.

Folks, this is logic running this country. God help us all.



CW

Right on, Target!

Let me just ask... What would happen if Target Corporation had donated to a PAC that was supporting Mark Dayton's gubernatorial bid for the Democrats in Minnesota? Crickets...

Yeah that's right, nothing would happen. But it seems that Target should be scorned and boycotted because their executives made a political judgment that Republican Tom Emmer would be better for their business, for their customers and better for their shareholders.

Today we find out that at least one network will have none of it. MSNBC rejected political ads from the leftist Moveon.org crowd. FTA: MSNBC spokeswoman Alana Russo said Thursday that the commercial submitted by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org violates its advertising policy by attacking an individual business directly. The ad features Target's bullseye logo and accuses the chain of trying to buy elections.

The predictable backlash from gay-rights supporters against Target Corp.'s political donation drowns out all reason. In this era of ultra sensitive political correctness and multi-culturalism has some institutional shareholders raising their eyebrows.

Three management firms that collectively hold $57.5 million of Target stock namely, Walden Asset Management, Calvert Asset Management and Trillium Asset Management, have filed a proposal asking Target's board members to undertake a comprehensive review of Target's political contributions including the criteria used for such contributions.

The facts: for one, $57 million is a minuscule fraction of Target's public stock, and two, these three firm's investment strategies have less to do with effective investing as much as promoting knee-jerk leftist causes. For obvious reasons you will never read about this in the StarTribune, Washington Post or the New York Times .

It seems these firms also questioned Best Buy who contributed to the same PAC. But what of the companies that donated to Dayton's PAC's? Crickets...

It comes down to this, supporting the definition of marriage, a definition that is thousand's of years old, as one man and one woman is radical. Politicians who hold such a view are radical. Worse than that they are evil. Ola Fadahunsi, spokesman for New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the sole trustee of the state's pension fund which hold's millions in Target stock, told the newspaper. "It's troubling to think that they [Target] can fund controversial candidates without properly assessing the risks and rewards involved."

At least thirty two states have put the definition of marriage up for a vote and thirty two states have declared that a marriage is one man and one woman. Repulican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer wants to allow the voters of Minnesota to have a chance to decide this question and Mark Dayton doesn't. Simple as that. Apparently this is what makes Emmer radical and evil and undeserving of ANY political contributions.

Mark Dayton has only one theme and one solution - soak the rich. To me he is controversial and quite frankly simply nauseating. Unfortunately, Mark, there just aren't that many rich guys.

As I told a friend, I'd vote for a moldy tennis shoe over Mark Dayton.





CW

Wow! Really?

My wife has a habit of overusing the fad phrase of the day. Usually they are fun or cute or even clever - for a while. Her latest is "chillaxing". Frankly this one is neither fun, cute nor clever. The other phrase of the day is "Wow! Really?". This one is dragged out whenever someone overstates the obvious. Used judiciously this one can be fun and clever.

So when I heard the story of the JournoList, a list serve consisting of several hundred liberal journalists as well as others, which concluded, based on leaked entries that mainstream journalists conspired to protect Barack Obama's candidacy in 2008 my first thought was, wow! Really?

Helen Keller could have concluded that the major media was in the tank for Barack Obama and she is dead as well as being deaf, dumb and blind. I suppose there is a chance that considerate voters believed they were being fed fair and balanced reporting during the 2008 presidential campaign. The McCain campaign was painfully inept, but that does not excuse the news media literally ignoring some of Obama's highly questionable associations and positions.

These journalists checked their objectivity at the door and colluded to give the edge to Obama. If John McCain had been the equivalent of Adolph Hiltler one could understand such action, but McCain was a moderate Republican who had been a war hero and a reasonably honorable man all his life. In fact, based on Obama's associations and positions he could have easily been compared to the less than honorable, budding dictator, Hugo Chavez. To these so-called journalists a war hero and moderate Republican was far worse than any two-bit third world dictator.

Barack Obama would have been a long shot if the media had been as tenacious on his back story as they were on Sarah Palin's. Mrs. Palin was not the best choice for McCain's running mate at the time - it was a blunder (this coming from an admirer and someone who had followed her career long before the summer of 2008). The pile on she endured was way out of whack regarding her experience and qualifications for being Vice President since they easily matched Obama's for being President. This was an undeniable fact.

It seems that considerate voters have had a revelation about the media made messiah. President Obama has achieved some impressive legislative feats with super majorities in both houses of Congress. He has not, however, made a positive difference for millions of jobless Americans, including most African Americans. He has not and is incapable of making Americans feel good about their country. He is a scolder, a finger waver. He engenders no sense of certainty that our businesses or our citizens can rally around to build a prosperous future. In fact, many are uncertain he even wants a prosperous future for this particular country.

What was that you just said? Wow! Really?




CW

Oil is a Miracle not a Curse

It is so hard to listen to otherwise smart people get in a tither over "America's addiction to oil". It is a foolish and uniformed argument that needs to be squashed.

Years before Global Warming was a glint in Al Gore's eye the estimable Sci Fi superstar Arther C. Clarke was scolding us in his futuristic novel "The Deep Range"...

Chapter 23; The Bureau of Mines was also responsible for the hundreds of oil wells that now dotted the sea beds, pumping up the precious fluid that was the basic material for half the chemical plants on Earth- and which early generations, with criminal shortsightedness, had actually burned for fuel.

If an equivalent alternative for powering our cars, ships, airplanes, trains and trucks was sitting on the shelf and being ignored, then and only then would Mr. Clarke's little tirade not be an insult.

Hearing President Obama and then movie star Robert Redford days later scolding Americans for putting gas in their cars to get around left the impression that the alternative was there for the taking and mysterious forces were keeping it just out of reach. The implication was clear, somehow we - the people - are all complicit!!!

The truth is oil is a miracle, it's God's gift to the modern world without which the modern world would never have come about. If cut off from oil now we would driven back into the feudal age. Billions would suffer, and millions would die. Right now - in this day and age - there is no alternative.

If there's anything I agree with these people about is that as a society we should leave no stone unturned looking for an equivalent alternative to oil as a basic transportation fuel. The trouble is if we let these fools have their way they would hamstring us by enacting draconian rules against using the most effective energy source we have at this point in time. Lowering our standards of living and essentially promoting poverty is the worst possible way to achieve the next level. Yes, the end of the oil age has to come for a whole host of good reasons, but shooting ourselves in the head is far worse than slowly "poisoning" ourselves. Yes, we can be assured that the Earth will heal from the disaster in the Gulf Of Mexico. It is beyond terrible, wholly regrettable and probably even criminal, but it's not the end of the world.

In the wake of the Gulf Of Mexico oil leak there have been countless talking heads spouting off about the evils of oil and oil companies (and even about the pre-Obama government). Little has been explained about what a miracle oil is and how much of our modern world is dependent on it - how much we all are completely dependent on it.

Here I compiled a small list of products that require the use of oil - this, as they say, is just the tip of the iceberg:
Ammonia
Anesthetics
Antifreeze
Antihistamines
Antiseptics
Artificial limbs
Artificial Turf
Aspirin
Awnings
Balloons
Ballpoint Pens
Bandages
Basketballs
Bearing Grease
Bicycle Tires
Boats
Cameras
Candles
Car Battery Cases
Car Enamel
Cassettes
Caulking
CD Player
CD's & DVD's
Clothes
Clothesline
Cold cream
Combs
Cortisone
Crayons
Curtains
Dashboards
Denture Adhesive
Dentures
Deodorant
Detergents
Dice
Diesel fuel
Dishes
Dishwasher parts
Dresses
Drinking Cups
Dyes
Electric Blankets
Electrician's Tape
Enamel
Epoxy
Eyeglasses
Fan Belts
Faucet Washers
Fertilizers
Fishing Boots
Fishing lures
Fishing Rods
Floor Wax
Folding Doors
Food Preservatives
Football Cleats
Football Helmets
Footballs
Gasoline
Glycerin
Golf Bags
Golf Balls
Guitar Strings
Hair Coloring
Hair Curlers
Hand Lotion
Heart Valves
House Paint
Ice Chests
Ice Cube Trays
Ink
Insect Repellent
Insecticides
Life Jackets
Linings
Linoleum
Lipstick
Luggage
Model Cars
Mops
Motor Oil
Motorcycle Helmet
Movie film
Nail Polish
Nylon Rope
Oil Filters
Paint
Paint Brushes
Paint Rollers
Panty Hose
Parachutes
Percolators
Perfumes
Petroleum Jelly
Pillows
Plastic Wood
Purses
Putty
Refrigerant
Refrigerators
Roller Skates
Roofing
Rubber Cement
Rubbing Alcohol
Safety Glasses
Shag Rugs
Shampoo
Shaving Cream
Shoe Polish
Shoes
Shower Curtains
Skis
Slacks
Soap
Soft Contact lenses
Solvents
Speakers
Sports Car Bodies
Sun Glasses
Surf Boards
Sweaters
Synthetic Rubber
Telephones
Tennis Rackets
Tents
Tires
Toilet Seats
Tool Boxes
Tool Racks
Toothbrushes
Toothpaste
Transparent Tape
Trash Bags
TV Cabinets
Umbrellas
Upholstery
Vaporizers
Vitamin Capsules
Water Pipes
Wheels
Yarn




CW

What He Said...

Mark Steyn says it so well...

In the wake of the passing of Ted Kennedy we are only going to see and hear what the MSM feels is "appropriate". If, like Michael Jackson's, any of Mr. Kennedy's less than honorable transgressions are mentioned don't blink or cough - you will miss them.

Well Mark Steyn is not afraid and he sums it up nicely in his Orange County Register column of Aug 28th.

As Teddy's biographer Adam Clymer wrote, Edward Kennedy's "achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne."

You can't make an omelet without breaking chicks, right? I don't know how many lives the senator changed – he certainly changed Mary Jo's – but you're struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy's Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been OK to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo "would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history … Who knows – maybe she'd feel it was worth it." What true-believing liberal lass wouldn't be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?

We are all flawed, and most of us are weak, and in hellish moments, at a split-second's notice, confronting the choice that will define us ever after, many of us will fail the test. Perhaps Mary Jo could have been saved; perhaps she would have died anyway. What is true is that Edward Kennedy made her death a certainty.

Thank you Mark. Nicely put. Now, I have never, ever been a fan of this Kennedy at all. He may have been a swell guy if one had gotten to know him personally. All I know is his over the top bloviations that put him on par with the most vehement talk radio hosts generally turned my stomach. Yet his adorers have marked this as the end of civility in the body politic. Steyn begs to differ:

An NPR listener said the senator's passing marked "the end of civility in the U.S. Congress." Yes, indeed. Who among us does not mourn the lost "civility" of the 1987 Supreme Court hearings? Considering the nomination of Judge Bork, Ted Kennedy rose on the Senate floor and announced that "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit down at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution."

Whoa! "Liberals" (in the debased contemporary American sense of the term) would have reason to find Borkian jurisprudence uncongenial but to suggest the judge and former solicitor-general favored resegregation of lunch counters is a slander not merely vile but so preposterous that, like his explanation for Chappaquiddick, only a Kennedy could get away with it. If you had to identify a single speech that marked "the end of civility" in American politics, that's a shoo-in.

Again, so well said. That was the moment the American Cold Civil War began.

So long Mr. Kennedy. I hope you made peace with your maker because you didn't make peace here on this Earth.

CW

This Guy is Unbelievable!

WSJ HEADLINE:
Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling

The problem is the 2 billion in loans and/or loan guarantees are going to Petrobras, a Brazilian oil giant. Petrobras has discovered a vast oil field in the Atlantic Ocean that they plan to tap with no eco-guilt reservations whatsoever.

It is well known that the United States also has vast oil reserves on land and offshore but lawmakers have prohibited access to it for years. The President has made it clear he wants America to work towards a "green" energy infrastructure and is not in favor of domestic exploration/extraction. So why aid a foreign oil company while denying America access to its own resources? There are numerous advantages to domestic production, not the least of which is a lot of decent paying jobs for Americans, but also a huge step toward lessening dependence on the oil we have to have from unfriendly sources.

Is this man the President of the United States or not? Is he trying to hobble this country on purpose?

We all want to see the end of the oil age for all kinds of good reasons, but right now truly viable alternatives do not exist. Work should proceed with haste to develop new energy paradigms - but we should not upend our economy for windmills and pipe dreams.

Everyday I dislike this President more. These kind of headlines boil my blood.


CW

Suppressing Science

"Facts be damned we have an agenda to advance!"

Is this what Rahm told Barack when the EPA chief shuffled out of the office with her tail between her legs? It is unbelievable to me that President Obama is not being scolded for this sin. George W. Bush was notorious, the "scolders" told us time and time again for ignoring science in favor of his deadly religious agenda. But Obama's deadly economic agenda doesn't merit such condemnation.

According to this surprising article on the CBS News website the Obama Administration talks out of both sides of its mouth - again:

hats off to CBS, what guts!

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data." The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

When questioned about this contradiction the Obama's EPA yanks this boilerplate platitude:

"Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."

Yeah, right... Said individual begs to differ.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Another scientist making the claim that global temperatures are going down does not fit the Obama climate change agenda - this just won't do - off with his head!!! Talk about suppressing science, here's what the author of the final report said to Mr. Carlin:

"I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."

Way to go President Obama! George Bush would be proud.



CW