"If the election were held today, we'd lose the House,"

....says Democrat campaign consultant Tom King.

And, of course, it's all Scott Rasmussen's fault!

Noteworthy:

"That messenger (Rasmussen)is clearly becoming a
force in politics, partly by polling more regularly and intensively than other companies such as Gallup. Pollster and blogger Mark Blumenthal says that in 2009 Rasmussen became the most searched-for polling firm on the Internet. It also apparently has become the No. 1 target for people who don't like its findings."

Goodness gracious! We don't know anyone like that in the local blahgosphere, do we?

#

Another look at Net Neutrality

Who could be against net neutrality? After all, Wikipedia describes it as "a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access."

Who would be against a principle like that, right? And didn't almost everybody agree that the recent uproar over the Time Warner plan to charge fees based on usage was a bad thing?

Holman Jenkins says it's time to re-think the entire thing now that wireless is becoming part of the deal.

Noteworthy:

"Here's where the real fight begins. Google has been one of the most influential net-neut proponents. It recently secreted its top lobbyist, Andrew McLaughlin, into a White House job as deputy head of telecom policy. But Google also understands, as its chief Eric Schmidt recently put it, 'It's very, very important that the telecom operators have enough capital to continue the build-outs.'

Google's trick will be to lobby for the optimum of Internet socialism—'tiered' pricing may be OK, in which some consumers pay extra for a bigger pipe. But usage-based pricing that would give consumers a reason to think twice before clicking on a Google-sponsored ad? It would be the end of Google's business model.

And Google has allies. The greatest fear of Microsoft, Amazon, eBay and Yahoo is having to plumb their deep pockets and offer competing payments to broadband carriers to speed their bits to consumers. They much prefer spending their money to sprinkle server farms around the globe, assuring fast, reliable access for their customers in a way that no newcomer can easily replicate.

......But then, for all the grass-roots pose, net neut has always been a weapon in the hands of status-quo companies trying to protect themselves against technological change. First AOL, now Google: A lot of things may be new under the sun, but regulatory incentives aren't one of them."

What's the lesson here?

For end users, I think it's "Be careful of what you wish for".

#

Holder (sort of) gets his wish granted

Unfortunately for him, the agenda-driven outcome he envisioned is just not going to happen.

The local "smart guy" does his usual smarmy best to turn things to an outcome his "regressive" sycophants will love, but the reality based local blogosphere will be discussing the subject here.

#

Last week's Obamacare speech made no real difference

Even the ABC/WaPo poll admits it, much to their chargrin and their best attempts to marginalize the implications.

It's not surprising, despite the Tank Media Tag Team's best efforts to discredit and downplay all the things negative about Obamacare, and the Obamanation in general.

Witness the latest example, the underreporting and misreporting of the massive protest in our nation's capital last Saturday:

"The Daily Mail said 2 million Americans participated. My friend Charlie Martin extrapolated from the pictures an attendance figure of 2.3 million. Here is a time lapse of the parade portion of the event so you can get a feel for yourself of the size of the crowd. Whatever the actual number it is sure to be seriously underestimated by the Obama-besotted members of the press corps who are also likely to misrepresent the participants and their views."

Some of the lefty blogger dummies (yes, I know-- that's redundant) actually tried to tell us there were only 30,000 in attendance!

Meanwhile, Joe Wilson hasn't been hurt by the Democrat demonizing of his truth-telling. Here's a reason why (2:56 mark):

The markets have figured out Obamanomics

The rally is over.

The babble, dribble, drool, and spew from the Rocket Scientists has taken its toll once again. And the Incompetent-in-Chief's Obamanation will continue the destruction with the coming economic malfeasance known as Obamacare, Cap 'n Trade, coupled with massive inflation caused by the useless Porkulus.

Related:

"Stop the Madness that's Killing Jobs"

Excerpt:

"Why is this job decline happening? The private sector — the real engine of economic and job growth — won't hire because it's scared of what it sees coming out of Washington.

On the horizon, as far as the eye can see, are higher taxes, uncontrolled spending and layers upon layers of new regulations.

Who would hire new workers faced with that?

Also, the federal government is meddling in the private sector as never before — in essence, nationalizing two of the three major car makers with $200 billion in subsidies and capital infusions, turning our banking system into a fourth branch of government through the $700 billion TARP program, spending $200 billion to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and put them back in the business of lending to people who can't pay their loans — which is how we got into trouble in the first place.

And that's only what's been done in the last half year or so. What really scares private businesses is what's in the pipeline.

• Health insurance reform: Estimates for reforming our medical care range from $1 trillion to $3.6 trillion, with much of the bill footed by businesses. All to take care of 46 million uninsured.

But 10 million of those aren't citizens. And according to former CBO chief June O'Neill, 43% of the total could afford to buy coverage but don't. So the problem is much smaller than people think.

As for current plans to take over our health care system, they'll barely help. According to Congress' own think tank, spending $1 trillion will only remove 16 million from the 46 million uninsured. (likely much more $$ and fewer people newly, not to mention the problem of rationing and lower quality of care for everyone else.)

• Cap and trade: A major reshaping of our nation's energy policy will include massive new taxes, mostly on businesses, and cause our economy to crater. Most depressingly, despite taxing businesses and consumers to the hilt, the Waxman-Markey climate stabilization act will not remove one ounce of carbon from our atmosphere over the next decade.

It's nothing but a huge scam that will bankrupt any business that relies heavily on energy, boosting fuel prices by 22 cents a gallon and socking the average family with an $1,800 a year (more like $4000 yearly, including indirect costs) tax hike."

We haven't even begun to talk about the thuggery, the increased government intrusion into our lives, and the forthcoming erosion and/or elimination of stated and unequivocal Constitutional rights, and the invention of new "progressive" worldview agenda-driven imaginary Constitutional rights.

How bad is it going to get?

Let me ask the real question.

How bad are we going to allow it to get before we take action?

#

'Would you like your new 2010 American-built Obamamobile in Shades of Pink, or would All-Out Red be better?'

"Oh, one more thing: In addition to transportation to the selling point charge, dealer prep, cap 'n trade fees, new technology surcharges, the mandatory universal no fault auto insurance costs, sales and other state and local cash entitlement fees, there will be a slight additional surcharge of 10% for the new UAW Political Action/Slush Fund fee. Plus, you need to pre-pay your expected first year red light and speed camera traffic fines of $5000. And, of course, there will be no refunds or carry overs year to year."

Unfortunately, the Obamanationization of the U.S. auto industry is likely the kiss of death, even with some of the non-level playing field conditions the Obamamobiles are sure to enjoy.

Noteworthy:

"Stacking the deck in favor of GM and Chrysler, and using new taxes to create demand for alternative fuel vehicles which Obama wants built in the US, won't be enough to guarantee success for Chrysler and GM. The Politicized auto industry will still need to compete with the strongest players in this market. GM and Chrysler will need to have excellence in design, and to manufacture cars that are high quality to attract buyers.

As we see in the banking industry, having the government as your investment partner creates huge disincentives to attract and retain top, capable, and motivated management. This is the fatal flaw of Obama's politicization of the American automobile industry, and it will be shown that the money from the US Treasury was a poor investment, and the better outcome would have come from a regular Chapter 11 reorganization without the Obama's heavy handedness."

#

It's time to revisit the techniques liberals use to tell lies

Even though we're all quite familiar with them, particularly as they're used in the local blahgosphere, it's worthwhile to publicly repeat them every few months.

John Hawkins does us this needed service in this column.

Key points:

"There are two reasons why liberals lie much more than conservatives. First off, this is a center-right country and liberal beliefs are much more unpopular than conservative ones. If liberals told the truth about what they believe and want to do, the Democratic Party would practically be wiped out in much of the country.

Additionally, conservatives tend to think liberals are merely stupid or emotional, while liberals tend to view conservatives as evil -- and liberals use that belief to justify lying about conservatives. After all, if you lie about someone who's evil to keep them from doing bad things, couldn't that be considered virtuous? You may disagree with that, but liberal politicians, bloggers, and journalists live by that rule. Any lie told about a conservative, even one that liberals know isn't true, will be uncritically repeat ad nauseum by the Left until the point it becomes politically disadvantageous to do so."

...and:

"When liberals want to avoid a losing argument, they sometimes just refuse to have the argument at all and assure everyone that the matter has already been decided. Why, there's no need for Al Gore to even debate global warming with people who could easily blow holes the size of the Grand Canyon in his arguments because he insists that there's a non-existent 'scientific consensus.'

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? As long as the Kerry campaign ignored them, most of the mainstream media did, too, but then the line of attack was immediately that the Swifties had already been 'discredited.' Who discredited them? How did it happen? What made them less credible than Kerry, particularly since they made him change his story more than once? Whenever you hear liberals in some form or fashion insisting that the argument with conservatives on a particular issue is already over, it's a good indication that they believe they'll really get their clocks cleaned in a straight up debate."

Gosh....do we know anyone locally who uses those techniques?

Hmmmmm....

Let me think.

#

Can you say 'b-b-b-b-bye bye', Al?

You see Al, when you use hype, fear, nonsense, propaganda, lies, and other fraudulent means, and try to pass it off as "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming", and try to tell us that "the debate is over", you will get your ass kicked every time. And your pals in the Tank Media, and in La La Libland will never be able to keep you covered, no matter how much and how loud they babble, dribble, drool and spew on this subject.

#

Mark to Market needs to go

Elsewhere in the local blahgosphere, you'll read some information about mark to market from a know it all who knows nothing, and a media source who is increasingly irrelevant.

Pay attention to what Brian Wesbury and Ron Isana say on this clip:


The stupidity on the economic situation is widespread throughout our local blahgosphere. Witness the absurd responses from one of the most usual of Usual Suspects regarding the damage Obama has done and continues to do to the economy.

This stuff isn't Rocket Science, but the people who have been aiding and abetting the down spiral for political reasons, sheer arrogance, or abject stupidity need to be called out....every time they run their mouths.

David Theroux has further thoughts on Obama's culpability in this mess:

"Meanwhile, Obama has greatly expanded upon the gigantic Bush $700 billion bailout that Obama supported last fall (as did John McCain) with calls for trillions more in federal spending, taxes and debt. Moreover his proposal for the housing meltdown is more of the exact same measures that created the mortgage bubble in the first place, and that he has long supported!"

Yet another example of Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" hate speech

Incidents like these are not rare by any stretch of the imagination, but they are virtually unreported because of the Tank Media's left agenda orientation.

Key point:

"While college demonstrators here and abroad regularly burn, deface, and desecrate the flags of Israel and the United States, something that the courts have repeatedly upheld as Constitutionally-protected speech, only on a campus controlled by Left-leaning faculty and radicalized students could the protest against the flags of genocidal terrorist thugs be considered, as it was here, an attempt to 'incite violence,' 'hateful religious intolerance' and an act by those who 'pre-meditated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence.'"

As always, these sort of things only work in one way: To support an unsupportable Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" agenda item.

We have only to look at the national level, as evidenced by the recent exercrable racial remarks by the incumbent Attorney General, and to the local level, where the "intolerable racism" label is applied to all things Wray-related , by the News and Record, the local power brokers, and the run of the mill libthinkers who enable all of the nonsense and bad behavior.

We see many examples of this here in Greensboro, and the perps ALWAYS get a pass.

Stay tuned for more on this issue. By no means am I done discussing this disease, and the local people who are responsible for inflicting this affront to decency, common sense and the public good.

Certifying Andrew Sullivan's delusions

Remember how certain overwrought Idiot Child Sullivan was over Trig Palin being daughter Bristol's child, rather than Mom Sarah's offspring ?

Here's the latest news for Wonder Boy: Bristol's delivery is imminent, approximately eight months after Trig's birth.

Noteworthy:

"Andrew Sullivan is furiously crunching numbers on his Texas Instruments calculator and punching out big Excel spreadsheets showing that this all could have happened just the way he claimed. His numbers work out if he's allowed a single premise -- somewhere in the Palin household is a free-range 'emergency uterus.'"

A little perspective on Mr. Truther, from his very own blog, no less:

"Will, a loyal Dish reader, writes:

Andrew Sullivan’s latest on Trig Palin’s maternity is uncomfortable reading. After wading through the muck, I’m left wondering why he feels the need to badger the poor woman over the circumstances of her son’s birth. Even if everything he says is true - the pregnancy was staged to protect her daughter; the entire story is fraudulent; the press is silently complicit - I still have no idea why we should care. If Palin is lying to protect her daughter, I have nothing but sympathy for the poor woman and her family.

I agree. While signing off, Andrew mentioned the months long argument he and I have had with regard to Sarah Palin's fifth child. I am the only other person who has read all the obstetrician interviews, the interview with a reporter at the scene, and all the primary sources. I strongly believe that there is nothing to this story."

Red Meat for Nutroots near and far

Cheney extols the merits of the Nutroots' favorite "torture" topic.




Gateway Pundit has details.

I hope VPOTUS has much more to offer the Nutroots before he leaves office next month. I think it's more than fitting that he contribute to keeping their little minds and big mouths otherwise occupied and out of trouble for a while.

All of us have heard the babble about 'right wing rage'

It's a favorite talking point of Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" everywhere whenever they start feeling the heat of accountability for their words and actions.

But as John Hawkins details for us, "right wing rage" is just a cover-up, and amounts to nothing more than left wing projection.

Noteworthy:

"But the truth is that you don’t have to be angry, loud, hateful, or advocate violence to be a 'loud and angry voice' that 'spreads hate' in the eyes of the left or the media.

You merely have to disagree with them.

People will see that in the near future, when talk radio is hammered for some incident or another — it really doesn’t really matter what specific incident, because the facts will be secondary — and then the left uses the occasion to try to ram through the Fairness Doctrine and clamp down on Limbaugh, Hannity, and others. If you can’t make a better argument, then use the power of government to silence your political opponents.

You can also expect the Democrats to go back to the 'right-wing rage' meme as soon as the glow starts to wear off of Obama. After all, he ran as an 'everything to everyone' candidate. He portrayed himself as a diehard liberal and a moderate, a hawk and a dove, a tax cutting free marketer and a statist, a pragmatist and an idealist, a partisan tough guy and a unifier. No matter what he does, a lot of people are destined to be deeply disappointed in him."

We see a superb example of this particular delusion at work over at our pal Ed Cone's blog, the local Usual Suspect haven for smarmy, arrogant, and narcissitic, pseudo-intellectual "progressive" dweebs. This lefty projection occurs whenever a conservative has the temerity to tell the truth while commenting at that particular den of iniquity.

This quote sums Obama up quite nicely, doesn't it?

"You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so.'

- Melanie Philips, The Spectator ( UK ) 10/14/08

An illuminating story about the veracity of those presidential polling numbers

Just a note to our Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" pals: Don't start the victory party just yet.

Noteworthy:

"I say all of this because this pollster conveyed strong concern about their standing going into the homestretch. They are very concerned about winning the vote of the middle class and whole swaths of the electorate they consider the "unkowns." In fact, and based on her conversation with this internal pollster for Obama, he's not ahead in the polls as we're being told. He's at best tied.

Look, take it for what it is. But what I know is that we're being sold a bill of goods by the media. Why? Not to be conspiratorial, but they likely just want to dispirit us, precisely because Obama has yet to seal the deal. He should be way ahead this season, but he's not."

And we all know what the reaction is going to be if Mr. Messiah loses, don't we?

McCain volunteer attacked and injured by Obama supporter

Gee......we didn't read about this little item in the Daily Kos, in the Greensboro News and Record, or on a News and Record blog, or at a News and Record employee's personal blog, did we?

It must have no substance whatsoever, right?

I mean, it wasn't like the victim was an innocent "member of the press", was it?

Excerpt:

"While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: 'Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.'

The names have been redacted out of respect for people’s privacy

The overly formal document doesn’t mention this important detail: the victim was a small, quiet, middle-aged woman wearing glasses, and the attacker was a loud, angry man who went into orbit at the mere sight of McCain campaign signs."

The Obama "tax cut" that isn't

Why is this guy allowed to lie about his "tax cuts for 95 percent of the 'working families'" talking point?

Noteworthy:

"In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers."

Explain to me once again how all this amounts to a "tax cut". And be sure to tell me why Obama gets a pass on this lie from his Tank Media PR gang.

Let's take another look at the "credit crisis"

Why is bank lending UP?

"As Robert Higgs points out consumer loans are up, commercial and industrial loans are up, even real estate loans are up. Overall, total bank credit is up with just a slight sign of leveling off in recent weeks. So where is the credit crunch?"

"First, one reason that bank lending is up may be that firms with good projects have already turned to the substitute bridge of ordinary bank loans. Second, I wonder how much real lending was actually being generated by asset backed securities. Could it not be that most of the funds generated were used to buy more asset backed securities? (The growth in these securities is certainly suggestive of that possibility). If that is the case then it explains why the real economy has been remarkably resilient to the 'credit crunch.'"

I wonder if one of our local financial rocket scientists can figure this out.

The Cone Project: Diverting attention away from who bears the blame for the Freddie and Fannie fiasco

News for our Blogger Boy Extraordinaire and his Nutroot buddies: It's not Rick Davis.

Try the Obama advisor Franklin Raines, and assorted Dem Klowns in Congress.

Noteworthy:

"That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess."

Filling the world with fools

Walter Williams: The financial "crisis" is NOT a failure of markets, but is rather a failure of government:

"Many politicians and pundits claim that the credit crunch and high mortgage foreclosure rate is an example of market failure and want government to step in to bail out creditors and borrowers at the expense of taxpayers who prudently managed their affairs. These financial problems are not market failures but government failure. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a federal law that intimidated lenders into offering credit throughout their entire market and discouraged them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining. The Federal Reserve Bank, keeping interest rates artificially low, gave buyers and builders incentive to buy and build, thereby producing the housing bubble. Lenders were willing to make creative interest-only loans, often high-risk 'no doc' and 'liar loans,' in order to allow people to buy more housing than they could afford. Of course, with the expectation that housing prices will continue to rise, it was no problem for lenders and borrowers but housing prices began to fall, leaving some people with negative home equity and banks in trouble.

The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy. In fact, what we see now is a market correction to foolhardy government policy. Congress' move to bailout lenders and borrowers who made poor decisions will simply create incentives for people to make unwise decisions in the future. English philosopher Herbert Spencer said, 'The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools'"

Hat tip: Mark Perry, who adds:

"Or if you make the world safe for idiots (and reckless borrowers, investors and executives), you’ll create a world full of idiots (reckless borrowers, investors and executives)."

As a side effect, you'll also create a world of pseudo journalist/blogger "experts" who fail to understand the basics, and see no harm in posting doom and gloom economic information which fuels the problem by creating needless hysteria.