Jason Shih Did Work for the Corizine Campaign

A kid doing Doing field consulting work for the Corzine Campaign was busted today for drug possession.

 The New York Post put up the story and then took took it down after the Corzine campaign said they never heard of the guy.

 They lied. Via the New Jersey Democratic State Committee Expenditure Detail at Open Secrets, Jason Shih did did do some work for the Corzine campaign as a consultant.

Not what Corzine needs just a few days before the election.

The MacRanger Show is ON THE AIR!

Join me at 12pm EST for the MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio.  One hour of analysis on the week in news, views and your calls!   The number is 646-652-4913 and the chat room will be open!

See you there!

Scozzafava Suspends Campaign - Throws Support to Hoffman

Just breaking:

 "Dede Scozzafava, the Republican and Independence parties candidate, announced Saturday that she is suspending her campaign for the 23rd Congressional District and releasing all her supporters. 

 The state Assemblywoman has not thrown her support to either Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, or Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate. "Today, I again seek to act for the good of our community," Ms. Scozzafava wrote in a letter to friends and supporters. "It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support.

Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so.

I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger and our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations."

 Ms. Scozzafava told the Watertown Daily Times that Siena Research Institute poll numbers show her too far behind to catch up - and she lacks enough money to spend on advertising in the last three days to make a difference. Mr. Owens has support from 36 percent of likely voters in the poll, with Mr. Hoffman garnering 35 percent support. Ms. Scozzafava has support from 20 percent of those polled."

 With her support going to Hoffman, he should easily pull this out.  Moveover, this is a victory for the conservative wing of our party.  Scozzafava was a moderate - more liberal than not or worse- and voters are clearly rejecting that stance in this day of liberal spend and tax.

This is also a wakeup call for the GOP, quite throwing these any-way-the-wind-blows candidates at us, we're not biting.

Look for this election to be a mandate that will spread throughout the elections of 2010 and even 2012.

Gavin Newson Drops from California Governor Race

Good thing, it would have brutal. Newsom's mayorship has been one of utter failure and anarchy, and while that sells in SF, it wouldn't across the State.

 "San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has been seen as a leading contender to be the next governor of California, announced today that he is quitting the race. Newsom is withdrawing from the Democratic primary amid lackluster poll numbers and meager fund-raising receipts. 

His withdrawal leaves state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who is expected to run even though he has not officially entered the race, with little opposition in the Democratic primary. “It is with great regret I announce today that I am withdrawing from the race for governor of California,” Newsom said in a statement. “With a young family and responsibilities at City Hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to — and should be — done. 

This is not an easy decision. But it is one made with the best intentions for my wife, my daughter, the residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and California Democrats.” Although Newsom had been effectively running for more than a year, his campaign never gained much traction. 

Even in his hometown, which Newsom touted as a model of cutting-edge policies, his candidacy was widely derided among civic insiders. Perhaps most telling was the absence of support from the major San Francisco donors who helped underwrite Newsom’s successful campaigns in the city. He also drew relatively few endorsements from the ranks of his fellow elected officials. Newsom had repeatedly told those close to him that he did not want to embarrass himself in the governor's race."

No, he's done enough of that at City Hall.

White House Only Released Visitor Logs AFTER being threatened with a Lawsuit

Point of fact, several suits by watchdog groups prompted this release, so this isn't exactly a "voluntary" move.

 "As part of President Obama's commitment to government transparency, we are providing records of White House visitors on an ongoing basis online. In December 2009, we will begin posting all White House visitor records for the period from September 15th onwards under the terms of our new voluntary disclosure policy. In addition, as part of our new policy, we will post records dating from January 20th that are specifically requested on an ongoing basis. For more information, read the White House blog post announcing the new policy."

 CREW, a liberal "watchdog" group filed suit in June of this year for the logs. So did Judicial Watch

  A settlement was reached and this release is only a small piece of the pie. The rest is to come by year's end. So again, this is far from voluntary, and it's reproachable that the Obama administration would act as though it were otherwise.

 Incidently, there are some interesting names such as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. Some are poo-pooing on the parade saying that they are just similiar names, but how many William A. Ayers are there anyway?

Taxes Under Democrat Health Bill

Had enough America?

 Via Americans for Tax Reform here's a list of new taxes under the House Bill.

 Two catch my eye as particulary disturbing.

 "Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public."

So what does Pelosi and the democrats have against the disabled? Sure enough the cost of certain medical devices will increase as manufacturers will pass the cost of devices to the consumer. Then there is this one. 

"Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped). Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)"

 FSA's have proven thus far to be the greatest savings on healthcare to date. This only proves that the democrats don't want Americans controlling their own spending on healthcare and instead want to control that choice themselves.

PS:  Under the Pelosi's public options elective abortions are covered, that being by our tax dollars.

Again, had enough America?

While Obama Swoons in Polls - CNN goes after Palin

Anything to get the focus off the Glory Kid and his fading glory.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) - More than seven in 10 Americans think Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president, according to a new national poll. Seventy-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning believe the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee is not qualified to be president, with 29 percent saying she does have the credentials to serve in the White House. Republicans appear split, with 52 percent saying she's qualified and 47 percent disagreeing with that view.

The poll indicates that about half of the country, 51 percent, has an unfavorable view of Palin, with 42 percent seeing her in a positive light. Nearly two-thirds of those questioned say Palin's not a typical politician, and feel she's a good role model for women. Fifty-six percent add that Palin cares about people, and a similar amount think she's honest and trustworthy. But the survey indicates Americans are split over whether Palin shares their values, agrees with them on the issues, or if she's a strong leader."

Of course this is another weighted Democrat CNN poll.  It's designed to do nothing except to show just who the media is worried about in 2012.

 If Palin was really all that unpopular why bother?  Fact is that early in 2008 polls showed the same feeling about Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama was never really considered qualified for President by anyone with half a brain (liberals excused from that requirement), and according to his plunging poll numbers that's evident.

Lieberman Gives Reid a Noogie

Gotta love this:

 "Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.

 Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will.

"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."

 Asked about Lieberman’s threat to filibuster a final vote on the Reid plan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: "I haven't seen the report from Sen. Lieberman or why he's saying what he's saying. I think Democrats and Republicans alike will be held accountable by their constituents who want to see health care reform enacted this year.” 

 Well Gibbs is a clueless as his boss about what we the people want. Healthcare reform yes, on the backs of taxpayers - no.

 Lieberman has heard from constituents and so have other conservative democrats, NO NEW TAXES, NO GOVERNMENT-RUN healthcare. As I said before, the public option is dead and now it appears it's written in stone. Look for the liberals to re-double their efforts but it's sure to fail. By the way keep bugging your representatives and don't let the media tell you that it's not working!

Pull the Plug on Little Terminal Sally - How Obama's "National Emergency" for H1N1 is a Test for Death Panels

Sarah was right, as were we.

"President Obama has declared H1N1 swine flu a national emergency, clearing the way for his health chief to give hospitals wider leeway in how they handle a possible surge of new patients, administration officials said Saturday.

The president granted Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the power to lift some federal regulations for medical providers, including allowing hospitals to set up off-site facilities to increase the number of available beds and protect patients who are not infected. Obama said in the declaration that the "rapid increase in illness . . . may overburden health-care resources."

White House officials played down the dramatic language, saying the president's action did not stem from a new assessment of the dangers the flu poses to the public. Instead, officials said the action provides greater flexibility for hospitals that may face a surge of new patients as the virus sweeps through their communities. The declaration allows Sebelius to waive certain requirements under Medicaire and Medicaid, privacy rules and other regulations."

Note that last one. Last Sunday the Sun-Sentinel in Florida reported that they had been working on a plan that would allow hospitals to "force discharge" terminal and non-currable patients to make room for H1N1 patients.

"Florida health officials are drawing up guidelines that recommend barring patients with incurable cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis and other conditions from being admitted to hospitals if the state is overwhelmed by flu cases. The plan, which would guide Florida hospitals on how to ration scarce medical care during a severe flu outbreak, also calls for doctors to remove patients with poor prognoses from ventilators to treat those who have better chances of surviving. That decision would be made by the hospital.

But wait, it get's better. Utah tried the plan with theater.

"Utah family physician Pete DeWeerd had to tell a mock patient's mother that her 7-year-old daughter, who had cerebral palsy and was suffering from the flu, would be turned away from the hospital and likely die. "I don't like to tell you this," he said he told her, "it feels unfair, but our list is our list is our list." He added: "It was awful. You get a huge lump in your throat." Dr. Tom Kurrus, medical director of St. Mark's Hospital in Salt Lake City, called it "emotionally draining" when mock patients and family members yelled, screamed and took issue with who was denied treatment. "The major weakness in our preparedness had to do with security," he said.

Under Obama's state of emergency HIPAA would be suspended.

 HIPAA is the rule which protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information, and the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety Rule, which protect identifiable information being used to analyze patient safety events and improve patient safety.

 Hospitals would then be able to suspend their "Patient Bill of Rights" which also contains guarantees to protect you and I from being denied treatment or from having third parties review our personal medical information.

 What does this mean folks?

 Yup there would have to be "Death Panels", who can now officially decide who lives and who dies.

A Personal Message - Another Journey - Our Dual Cancer Battles

Hi friends and readers of Macsmind.   Last month my wife of 26 years was diagnosed with cancer during an emergency hospital stay.   Incredibly this month during a routine physical I too was discovered to have prostate cancer.

During the next five to six weeks my wife will undergo both chemo and radiation that will be followed by surgery.  Also during that time I will be undergoing radiation for 8 weeks followed by a 'seed implant".  I have an excellent prognosis of cure 85%.

This is just a note to let you know that at times I will be sporactic in posting, as well as appearing on the MacRanger Show, as well as my local schedule.   Additionally if you are a long time reader and would like to guest post on Macsmind let me know, I surely would appreciate the help and I'm sure the readers would too.

However through the strength of God and his grace we will get through - it's the only way to get through - and will share our experiences with others to help them over come.

Thanks in advance for your prayers and support.

Legal Challenges to Mandated Insurance Being Prepared Even Now

Whether or not Obama is able to mandate you and I buy health insurance, those who will challenge the constitutionality of it have already prepared hundreds of case filings around the country.

This will surely keep the mandate from taking force and in fact may well lead to the Supreme Court, where a ruling is likely to be favorable on the side of liberty.

Back in June, the WSJ provided a early rebuke to Pelosi and other dems who side-step the constitutionality question.

Anyone who imagines that Congress can simply avoid the constitutional issues -- and lawsuits -- by withdrawing federal court jurisdiction over the new health system must think again. 

A brief review of the Supreme Court's recent war-on-terror decisions, brought by or on behalf of detained enemy combatants, will disabuse that notion. 

This area of governmental authority was once nearly immune from judicial intervention. Over the past five years, however, the Supreme Court (supposedly the nonpolitical branch) has unapologetically transformed itself into a full-fledged, policy-making partner with the president and Congress. In the process, the justices blew past specific congressional efforts to limit their jurisdiction and involvement like a hot rod in the desert. 

Questions of basic constitutionality (however the court may define them) cannot now be shielded from judicial review. It is, of course, impossible to predict how and when the courts will ultimately rule on the new health system. Much depends on the details and the extent to which reasonable and practical private alternatives to the national plan remain. 

In crafting the law, however, its White House and congressional sponsors must keep privacy -- that near absolute right to personal autonomy they have so often praised and promoted -- squarely before them. The only thing that is certain today is that the courts, and not Congress, will have the last word."

Republicans Low Points in CNN Poll but Still doing Better in the Generic Ballots

Un-huh...

 "WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican Party's favorable rating among Americans is at lowest level in at least a decade, according to a new national poll.

 Thirty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 54 percent viewing the GOP negatively.

 According to the poll, 53 percent have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, with 41 percent holding an unfavorable view. The survey indicates that favorable ratings for the Democrats have dropped 5 points since February, with the Republican number slipping 3 points.

 "The Republican party may still be battling the legacy left to them by George W. Bush," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "They have also spent a lot of time in 2009 working against Democratic proposals. That hasn't left them a lot of time so far this year to present a positive, post-Bush message. Of course, there is still plenty of time for them to do so before the 2010 midterms."

 Nearly seven in ten people questioned say they disapprove of how Congress is handling its job, with 29 percent saying they approve. That's a drop of 6 points in the approval since April."

 Since CNN isn't posting the demographics we can assume some "weight" not favorable to Republicans, it's their stock and trade. Nevertheless, the numbers throughout the poll don't jive.

 How can Dems have a 53 percent approval rating and - while their in charge of congress - have a 29 approval rating?  Simply not possible.

 Spike this poll.

  Republicans are still in the lead on the generic averages and gaining in local polling.

Dems Close to Pushing Public Option? Not Quite

Lefty blogs all a twitter about hopes for Harry Reid getting through a Public Option.

"Democratic leaders in the Senate and House have concluded that a government-run insurance plan is the cheapest way to expand health coverage, and they sought Friday to rally support for the idea, prospects for which have gone in a few short weeks from bleak to bright. The shift in momentum is so dramatic that many lawmakers now predict that President Obama will sign a final bill that includes some form of government-sponsored insurance for people who do not receive coverage through the workplace.

Even Democrats with strong reservations about expanding government's role in the health-care system say they are reconsidering the approach in hopes of making low-cost plans broadly available. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sought support Friday for expansive versions of the public option as they prepared to send reform legislation to the Senate and House floors.

Their goal is to pass bills with similar versions of the public insurance option so that final talks between the two chambers can focus on other issues that could prove more difficult to resolve. The public option emerged as a flash point in the reform debate at the outset, with liberals championing it as a precursor to a single-payer system and conservatives warning that it would lead to rationing.

The rhetoric reached a fever pitch in hundreds of raucous town-hall meetings during the August congressional recess, leading Democrats -- including Obama -- to back off the idea for fear that it would sink overall reform legislation.

On Friday, congressional leaders marveled at how quickly the landscape has changed. "This is an exact quote: 'Off the table,' " House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.) said, recalling the headlines earlier this month when the Senate Finance Committee rejected two versions of the public option in its reform bill. Clyburn said the debate is no longer whether to include a public option, but "whether or not we will get this form of a public option or that form of a public option."

Since the talk of "death panels" at town-hall meetings in August, Clyburn said, the political climate has changed as voters have come to understand "that all of this foolishness was just that -- foolishness. Nobody wants to pull the plug on Grandma."

Frustrating to some The public-option debate is frustrating some Democrats, who have come to believe that a government-run plan is neither as radical as its conservative critics have portrayed, nor as important as its liberal supporters contend. Any public plan is likely to have a relatively narrow scope, as it would be offered only to people who don't have access to coverage through an employer.

The public option would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market. It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy.

In an early estimate of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that fewer than 12 million people would buy insurance through the government plan. Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), a moderate Democrat, said she still opposes a national plan financed by the federal government but would consider other permutations of a public plan, including a provision Reid is circulating to establish an "opt-out" clause for states that don't want to participate. "

There is a way to compromise this, I believe," she said. "The goal is not public or private. The goal is choice and affordability." Reid's strategy is to try to persuade his Democratic caucus to allow a health-care bill with an opt-out public plan to come to the floor, even if there is no guarantee that all 60 senators who caucus with Democrats would ultimately vote for it. All 40 Senate Republicans, including Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), who supported the Finance Committee bill, have pledged to block legislation that includes a government insurance plan.

Reid must unite Democrats to break that filibuster. "He's knows what he's doing is a gamble," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "But more and more, he's convinced it's the right thing to do." Reid's calculation is that it could be more difficult to add a public option through amendments on the Senate floor than to include it in the bill and force opponents to try to find the votes to strip it out. Manley said Reid would spend the weekend canvassing Democrats on the opt-out idea and would probably decide Monday whether to include it in the Senate bill."

Note the shift in definition of a "public option".   As it's now being defined it's no difference than AVMED or other "private company" insurance option.   If this passed it would hardly be a victory for those who demanded mandated government run insurance, that idea is dead.

Actually the WAPO is getting fed cheerleading points by Democratic aides and ops, but the fact is that Reid will fail if he tries to to even bring this watered down bill to the floor. 

Already targeted "conservative" dems aren't saying they'll vote for it, and in fact three of them have said on record that they do not support the option, no matter what it's called or defined.

A Great Speech - Dick Cheney Provides the Contrast between Leadership and Incompetence

No commentary, I'm posting Dick Cheney's speech in full as prepared and delivered to the Center for Security Policy last night.

Thank you all very much. It’s a pleasure to be here, and especially to receive the Keeper of the Flame Award in the company of so many good friends.

I’m told that among those you’ve recognized before me was my friend Don Rumsfeld. I don’t mind that a bit. It fits something of a pattern. In a career that includes being chief of staff, congressman, and secretary of defense, I haven’t had much that Don didn’t get first. But truth be told, any award once conferred on Donald Rumsfeld carries extra luster, and I am very proud to see my name added to such a distinguished list.

To Frank Gaffney and all the supporters of Center for Security Policy, I thank you for this honor. And I thank you for the great energy and high intelligence you bring to as vital a cause as there is – the advance of freedom and the uncompromising defense of the United States.

Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.

Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's leader without preconditions. As President, he has
committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about.

I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime in
Tehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran's democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran's
democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the
President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work.

Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we’ve made in recent years. Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with
President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended
comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking
about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his
intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq. Former President
Bush's bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.

We should all be concerned as well with the direction of policy on Afghanistan. For quite a while, the cause of our military in that country went pretty much unquestioned, even on the left. The effort was routinely praised by way of contrast to Iraq, which many wrote off as a failure until the surge proved them wrong. Now suddenly – and despite our success in Iraq – we’re hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security.

Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.

President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” End quote.

Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America’s armed forces. “I will give you a clear mission,” he said, “defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.”

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

It’s worth recalling that we were engaged in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. That was a successful policy, but then we pretty much put Afghanistan out of our minds. While no one was watching, what followed was a civil war, the takeover by the Taliban, and the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. All of that set in motion the events of 9/11. When we deployed forces eight years ago this month, it was to make sure Afghanistan would never again be a training ground for the killing of Americans. Saving untold thousands of lives is still the business at hand in this fight. And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage.

Then there’s the matter of how to handle the terrorists we capture in this ongoing war. Some of them know things that, if shared, can save a good many innocent lives. When we faced that problem in the days and years after 9/11, we made some basic decisions. We understood that organized terrorism is not just a law-enforcement issue, but a strategic threat to the United States.

At every turn, we understood as well that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. We had a lot of blind spots – and that’s an awful thing, especially in wartime. With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

The intelligence professionals who got the answers we needed from terrorists had limited time, limited options, and careful legal guidance. They got the baddest actors we picked up to reveal things they really didn’t want to share. In the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, by the time it was over he was not was not only talking, he was practically conducting a seminar, complete with chalkboards and charts. It turned out he had a professorial side, and our guys didn’t mind at all if classes ran long. At some point, the mastermind of 9/11 became an expansive briefer on the operations and plans of al-Qaeda. It happened in the course of enhanced interrogations. All the evidence, and common sense as well, tells us why he started to talk.

The debate over intelligence gathering in the seven years after 9/11 involves much more than historical accuracy. What we’re really debating are the means and resolve to protect this country over the next few years, and long after that. Terrorists and their state sponsors must be held accountable, and America must remain on the offensive against them. We got it right after 9/11. And our government needs to keep getting it right, year after year, president after president, until the danger is finally overcome.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

Eight years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed. So you would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years. No one knows just where that path will lead, but I can promise you this: There will always be plenty of us willing to stand up for the policies and the people that have kept this country safe.

On the political left, it will still be asserted that tough interrogations did no good, because this is an article of faith for them, and actual evidence is unwelcome and disregarded. President Obama himself has ruled these methods out, and when he last addressed the subject he filled the air with vague and useless platitudes. His preferred device is to suggest that we could have gotten the same information by other means. We’re invited to think so. But this ignores the hard, inconvenient truth that we did try other means and techniques to elicit information from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other al-Qaeda operatives, only turning to enhanced techniques when we failed to produce the actionable intelligence we knew they were withholding. In fact, our intelligence professionals, in urgent circumstances with the highest of stakes, obtained specific information, prevented specific attacks, and saved American lives.

In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program’s legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country’s name and in our country’s cause. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings – and least of all can that be said of our armed forces and intelligence personnel. They have done right, they have made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Last January 20th, our successors in office were given the highest honors that the voters of this country can give any two citizens. Along with that, George W. Bush and I handed the new president and vice president both a record of success in the war on terror, and the policies to continue that record and ultimately prevail. We had been the decision makers, but those seven years, four months, and nine days without another 9/11 or worse, were a combined achievement: a credit to all who serve in the defense of America, including some of the finest people I’ve ever met.

What the present administration does with those policies is their call to make, and will become a measure of their own record. But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America’s enemies. And it certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11.

There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.

We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work – the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.

Thank you very much.

Slip-Sliding Away - More Shrinking Numbers for Kid Obama

Poof!

 "In Gallup Daily tracking that spans Barack Obama's third quarter in office (July 20 through Oct. 19), the president averaged a 53% job approval rating. That is down sharply from his prior quarterly averages, which were both above 60%.

 In fact, the 9-point drop in the most recent quarter is the largest Gallup has ever measured for an elected president between the second and third quarters of his term, dating back to 1953. One president who was not elected to his first term -- Harry Truman -- had a 13-point drop between his second and third quarters in office in 1945 and 1946."

I don't find this "shocking at all"  I've said it all along.  The "buyer's remorse" of voting for a Paper Tiger.  Obama's turning out to be all talk, howbeit through a teleprompter, hugely petty - almost Nixonist in his paranoia, and quite frankly something Americans could do without right now.  

Look for this slide to continue.   Bush hit 40-30s in his second term, Obama will hit them before the middle of his second year.    Fact is that if we had a way of recall for the Presidency Obama would be hitting the want ads.

Obama could use Fox News instead of Childishly Criticizing It

Pathetic:

"A White House attempt to delegitimize Fox News – which in past times would have drawn howls of censorship from the press corps – has instead been greeted by a collective shrug. That’s true even though the motivations of the White House are clear: Fire up a liberal base disillusioned with Obama by attacking the hated Fox. 

Try to keep a critical news outlet off-balance. Raise doubts about future Fox stories. But most of all, get other journalists to think twice before following the network’s stories in their own coverage. "We're doing what we think is important to make sure news is covered as fairly as possible," a White House official told POLITICO, noting how the recent ACORN scandal story started because Fox covered it “breathlessly for weeks on end.” “And then you had a couple days of breast-beating from The Washington Post and The New York Times about whether or not they were fast enough on the ACORN story,” the official said. 

“And it's like: Wait a second, guys. Let's make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories, and what's being driven by a network that has a perspective. 

Being able to make that point has been important.” To some media observers, it’s almost the definition of a “chilling effect” – a governmental attempt to steer reporters away from negative coverage – but the White House press corps has barely uttered a word of complaint. That could be because of the perception among some journalists that Fox blurs the line between reporting and commentary - making it seem like not the most sympathetic victim. 

 Fox denies its news coverage is slanted, and even White House aides say the network’s top correspondent there, Major Garrett, is a straight shooter. But in its non-news hours, Fox mixes in a steady diet of criticism of President Barack Obama by its prominent conservative commentators Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. It’s a formula that works for Fox, with the highest ratings in cable news."

You would think that team Obama would remember that point.  Americans are tuning into to Fox 3-1 over the other cable outlets which incidentally - such as MSNBC - are nearly 100 percent pro-Obama.   But the fact is that the viewership of Fox creams MSNBC and CNN combined on many time slots.

Now to the news.   The ACORN story was, and is a huge story.   The fact that other networks completely missed it, or more accurately ignored it, is telling.  One, just like we found in the campaign they simply will not report negative on Obama no matter how many facts are thrown their way.  They missed Jeremiah Wright, they missed Bill Ayers, Van Jones and continue to miss the story of ACORN's corruption.

Nevertheless you would think that they would have learned from Presidents of the past that demonizing the media, especially the stronger media like Fox gets them no where.   Just as you get when you fight the Hulk, he only gets stronger.   All the White House did by this kids game of "liar, liar" is drive more viewers to Fox to find out what the fuss is about.

The paranoia of this administration is astounding, if not funny to watch.

WAPO Poll on Public Option finds "Surprise" that Democrats Like it

But of course, the WAPO headline would have you think that Americans are clamoring for a Public Option.  But note the poll breakdown Republican to Democrat.

"Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats."

So we're supposed to take this as a "mandate".

Note quite.  When polling with a more accurate breakdown - not by a news org that celebrated Obama's visit to it's office - it's more..

"Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats is down to 42%. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed."

That same daily tracking poll shows Obama continuing to slide in popularity.  If the WAPO is trying to help Obama it shouldn't be so "honest" in reporting it's heavily weighted polling.

Emanuel - We Suck on Afghanistan but of course it's Bush's fault

Everyone knows that your name is good for blaming things on six months after you leave the job. But were at the ninth month and still Obama-World is blaming Bush.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of President Obama's top advisers said Sunday the Bush administration failed to ask critical questions about the war in Afghanistan, leaving the Obama administration starting from scratch -- and leaving the war "adrift." White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says President Obama is asking new questions about Afghanistan War. "

The president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN's "State of the Union." Among the things the Obama administration wants to know from Afghan leaders: "Do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?" 

The United States faces "a much more complex decision" than just determining the appropriate level of troops, Emanuel told CNN chief national correspondent John King in a rare interview. "It's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift, that we're beginning at scratch, just at the starting point ... and that there's not a security force, an army, and the types of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner," Emanuel said.

The only thing "adrift" is competence in the Obama White House.

 They're totally enept at this point. But let's review the tape.

Things in Afghanistan did start to take a turn for the worse in 2008, but the current morass began in March of this year.

 After asking General McChrystal to give an assessment, one in which he called for more troops, Obama and his clan instead demonized the General and to this date has failed to send reinforcements.

  The Angry White Guy, "Since Obama took office over 318 American lives have been lost in the war on terror. We have a general asking for more troops, 40,000 to be exact to suppress the Taliban and Obama does nothing. Oh Obama says he’s going to study it… he’s going to look at it… he’s going to think about it and he is going to delay and cost more American lives."

 Obama's current dereliction of duty and incompetence is the issue not what Bush did or didn't do a year ago.

 It's nice to know that while our guys are dying and scraping with little support from their Commander in Chief, his Chief of Staff is pulling out the weasel clause.

Axelrod: Fox isn't Real News

Doof:

"White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday that the Fox News Channel is "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is "not really news." "I’m not concerned," Axelrod said on ABC's "This Week" when George Stephanopoulos asked about the back-and-forth between the White House and Fox News. "Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument [White House communications director] Anita [Dunn] was making is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even — it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. "It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said on CNN's "State of the Union" that Fox "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

I suppose that makes the Obama 24-Hour Love Channel MSNBC not a "real news organization either". For that matter much of the MSN isn't legit. Frankly this is further proof that the Obama administration is take the Queeg defense for it's incompetence.



 



By the way, Obama's at 45 percent approval rating and on average more people have turned into Fox News than Obama's weekly addresses. Who's your daddy Axelrod.

Al Sharpton IS a Criminal

Seems Mr. Anti-Semtic is mad about being called a "criminal".

"“Not only did Rush Limbaugh try to criminalize the NFL,” Sharpton told Page2Live, “but now he is saying I’m a criminal. He can call me a race-baiter and all that stuff like he does. But don’t call me a criminal. [...]"

Well in fact aside from his involvement in stroking riots and such Mr. Anti-Semitic IS a criminal in every sense of the word. Cheating on your income taxes is criminal.

 The IRS last year determined he did just that, to the tune of 1.8 million. Mr. Anti-Semitic settled for half of that and narrowly avoided being sent to jail. IRS sources told me he was essentially one step away from being charged with tax evasion and tax fraud.

Additionally,  via Freepers in 2007, "After Sharpton’s name surfaced on wiretaps in an unrelated Philadelphia City Hall corruption case, the FBI launched a probe into Sharpton’s fund-raising for his failed 2004 presidential run. The FBI secretly videotaped Sharpton on May 9, 2003, pocketing campaign donations from two “shady fund-raisers” in a NY City hotel room, and then demanding $25,000 more. The two fund-raisers were La-Van Hawkins and the late Ronald White. Hawkins is currently on trial in Philadelphia on corruption charges. White was going to be indicted, but died before charges were brought. A later wiretap recorded Hawkins telling White that they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton the previous quarter, but Hawkins was concerned that Sharpton had only reported about $50,000 to the Federal Election Commission, as required by law. Sharpton said the allegations were a “politically motivated smokescreen” to hide the fact the Justice Department is out to get him. He ripped the probe and the secret videotaping, saying, “Can you imagine what would happen if it was a white presidential candidate?”

 Only a flurry of sweetheart deals by his lawyers prevented that. Nevertheless in every sense of the word and by it's very definition Al Sharpton - Mr. Anti-Semitic is a criminal.

 Rush is right again.

NFL Boycott Blitz - Flood the Phones and Emails!

In line with my call to boycott the NFL over it's treatment of conservatives, at 12pm today and continuing throughout the day, I'm calling for people to flood the following contacts with faxes, emails and phone calls. NFL - Contact Form.

 Email for Robert Goodall - Roger.Goodell2@nfl.net   Phone number 1-212-450-2000 .

 Team Texting and Hotlines:

Main Sponsers:  NIKE Call 1-800-344-6453; 


Anheuser Busch 1-800-Dial-Busch




More to come.

Obama Thuggery - Threatens Insurance Companies over Truth Telling

Fishwrap.

"WASHINGTON — President Obama mounted a frontal assault on the insurance industry on Saturday, accusing it of using “deceptive and dishonest ads” to derail his health care legislation and threatening to strip the industry of its longstanding exemption from federal antitrust laws. In unusually harsh terms, Mr. Obama cast insurance companies as obstacles to change interested only in preserving their own “profits and bonuses” and willing to “bend the truth or break it” to stop his drive to remake the nation’s health care system.

The president used his weekly radio and Internet address to challenge industry assertions that legislation will drive up premiums. “It’s smoke and mirrors,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, ‘Take one of these, and call us in a decade.’ Well, not this time.” Rather than trying to curb costs and help patients, he said, the industry is busy “figuring out how to avoid covering people.” “And they’re earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exemption from our antitrust laws,” he said, “a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing.”

The president’s attack underscores the sharp break between the White House and the insurance industry as the health care debate moves closer to a climax. When Mr. Obama took office, he and his advisers had hoped to keep insurers at the table to forge a consensus. But as the months passed, the strains grew — until this past week, when industry-financed studies attacking the Democratic plan signaled an open rupture."

Of course Obama didn't like that little report the insurance companies released last week that showed an 18 percent rise in premiums. Funny that the Ny Times is ignoring how Obama threatening to sick the Justice Department's anti-trust division on the insurance companies is - what they accused Bush of - a "politicization of of the DOJ"

Saturday Night Comedy: Anti-Semitic Sharpton wants to Sue Limbaugh

Clown.

"The Rev. Al Sharpton is ready for a Rush to judgment. The civil rights leader, typically impervious to insults, said Saturday that he will sue Rush Limbaugh for defamation unless he gets an apology from the right-wing radio host.

Sharpton was outraged by a Limbaugh op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal that blamed him for the 1991 Crown Heights riot and a 1995 killing spree at a Harlem store. "I am definitely going to prove he makes reckless, unaccountable statements," Sharpton said. "Which is why he was forced out of buying an NFL team in the first place."

Limbaugh lashed out at Sharpton over the right-wing radio host's failed attempt to purchase a piece of the St. Louis Rams. Sharpton, among others, blasted Limbaugh's bid for NFL ownership. Limbaugh replied in his op-ed piece that Sharpton "played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot ... and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot." Seven people were killed by a gun-toting man who set a fire in the Freddie's Fashion Mart. A Jewish scholar was stabbed to death in Crown Heights three hours after a 7-year-old black boy was fatally struck by a car. Slanderous, according to Sharpton, who denied both allegations. "He doesn't have the right to lie and accuse people of crimes," Sharpton said. "He wants to criminalize me."

Sharpton's an ass and obviously senile.

 Let's review. Sharpton's anti-semitism was on full display in 1991 and was in fact instrumental in stroking the fires of the Crown Heights riot.

 A quote: "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." He followed with this gem, "Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights."

 Police officials specifically credited his statements with causing the riots. Of course his Tawney Brawley incident in 1987 in which Sharpton flat out lied - perjured himself - is the most noteworthy.

Via The Hill, In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. If you want to know what's really going on here Sharpton is trying to ward off what may well be a lawsuit against him by Limbaugh.

 Sharpton has little money for a lawsuit, still owing the IRS thousands of dollars. Rush has little to worry about from this anti-semite, but perhaps America could use a refresher course in just who Mr. Sharpton is. A hustling, lying, anti-semitic clown.

The MacRanger Show is ON THE AIR!

Join me at 12pm EST for The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio.   One full hour of analysis on the week in news, views and your calls.  Phone in 646-652-4913 as well as joining me in the chat room!

See you there

Putting Our Money where it Counts - Conservative Boycotting of the NFL will Continue

Rush writing in the WSJ:

"As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests. These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society."

And on the NFL. As I said before I'm absolutely sure that conservatives make up the lion share of money that comes to the NFL through television rights, merchandising and attendance.

 There is no way that any red blooded conservative should support an organization that routinely supports the suppression of conservative rights. Therefore I've cancelled my participation in the 2009 NFL season and will continue to do so until I see significant changes.

 I love the game of football too, but today I walked every bit of NFL gear out to the dumpster and tossed it. Additionally my participation is more than nominal - I will not mention to the extent - but I'm canceling that as well. But I can't do it on my own.

 I'm calling for conservative bloggers everywhere to follow suit. Rush listeners called in droves this week talking about canceling season tickets, and NFL packages on cable and dish TV.

 The NFL is in a crunch right now trying to squeak out dollars everywhere. This is the time to hit them, when they are down and get the message to them loud and clear that we are not going to tolerate this discrimination against conservatives.

 Pass the word, do your duty conservatives.

Fox Finally Fires Racist Cop-Killer Sympathizer Marc Lamont Hill

It's about time.  There is no way any network should give this cop killer lover face time on TV:

"Hill, a frequent guest on "The O'Reilly Factor" and other Fox News shows, has been the target of increasing criticism on the blogosphere for alleged sympathies to controversial figures includingAssata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Though Hill bills himself as an expert on hip-hop culture, he also drew fire for serving as a liberal foil for various Fox News personalities on subjects far from his stated area of expertise."

Good!    As David Horowitz pointed out"

"Not only is Fox News Contributor Marc Lamont Hill an admirer of convicted cop killer and radical icon Mumia Abu-Jamal, he’s also his publisher. AIM’s Cliff Kincaid discovered that Abu-Jamal had been promoted on Hill’s now-deleted myspace account. Well it goes even further than Kincaid initially reported. One of NewsReal’s astute readers just informed me of even more disturbing (though not particularly surprising) facts: For two years, I read Hill’s blog daily. His views are indeed radical. He frequently praised Castro and Khallid Muhammad, along with other criminals and dictators. For awhile, he even allowed Mumia Abu Jamal to guest post on a weekly basis."

Limbaugh to Sue - UPDATE

Rush on yesterday's program.

" I walked out of the studio at the top of the hour. I went into the control room where the trusted and loyal staff is just outraged. I no more than got one foot in the door, and Dawn starts shouting at me, "We are not satisfied, that first caller was wrong, we don't feel better. Sue 'em!" And then Snerdley stood up, started spitting out the same thing in anger. Brian said, "To hell with it, I'm leaving," and went and got a bottle of water. (laughing) I've become the new owner of the National Action Network. (interruption) Own the Monochrome Coalition? No, no, no. Look, folks, I understand. If you think you're enraged by this, trust me I'm right in there with you leading the pack. But there is a strategery here that has to play out, that has to take place. I don't want you to sit around and think that we're not looking into this. We have been for a while. It's gotta be done right, evidence has to be gathered. It's one battle in a long war. "

Which is correct.   There is a process that has to take place.  Meanwhile let's clear misconceptions about the nature of slander lawsuits.  Allah Pundit notes, referring to the retractions from Rick (DUI Killer) Sanchez and the Huffington Puffington Post:

"Proof that Limbaugh’s threat to sue people over this is being taken seriously? Eh, I doubt it. As I said before, it’s really hard for a public figure to prove defamation. He’d basically have to show that his accusers knew the quote was false and published it anyway; both HuffPo and Sanchez would reply that they didn’t know and were merely lazy, sloppy, negligent reporters in relying on published sources for a quote that they hadn’t fact-checked. The retractions, I suspect, are motivated less by fear of being sued than as a lame nod to journalistic ethics. “See, we correct our highly incendiary errors. …Eventually.”

It's not hard to prove defamation when real damages has occurred. Suits have been won on less. In 1981, actress Carol Burnett won a judgment against the Enquirer after it claimed she had been seen drunk in public at a restaurant with Henry Kissinger in attendance.  There are many other examples.

The legal defamation of Slander?

 Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include: :

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;

2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);

3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and

4. Damage to the plaintiff.

In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print. Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish. Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se: Attacks on a person's professional character or standing; Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude.

All points of which in this case could be easily proved.  A jury would be forced to ask, "Does a major news organization such as CNN, MSNBC and others have the resources and responsibility to check facts before they cause  harm to the plaintiff?"  A response that they were "merely lazy, sloppy, negligent reporters in relying on published sources for a quote that they hadn’t fact-checked", would be a call for a judgement.  Note,  it's extremely hard to claim these from a professional standpoint under the law.  The law expects professionals to behave as such and negligence of one's duties is not a legal excuse.

Again remember that under a civil suit the standard of probability is 51%, not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Limbaugh stood to earn millions from the deal and that is most likely what he will go after the networks for.

Breaking: Limbaugh to File Lawsuits Against Slanderers

First the news.

"Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was dropped from a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams. ESPN's Adam Schefter first reported the story on Wednesday. Limbaugh was to be a limited partner in a group headed by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts. Checketts said in a statement Wednesday that Limbaugh's participation had become a complication in the group's efforts and the bid will move forward without him. Checketts told the Associated Press he will have no further comment on the bid process.

Three-quarters of the league's 32 owners would have had to approve any sale to Limbaugh and his group. Earlier this week, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay predicted that Limbaugh's potential bid would be met by significant opposition.

Several players have also voiced their displeasure with Limbaugh's potential ownership position, and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith, who is black, urged players to speak out against Limbaugh's bid. A Limbaugh spokesman told ESPN that Limbaugh would have no comment on Wednesday. Earlier, on his syndicated radio show, Limbaugh was defiant, holding on to hope that he still could be part of the ownership group that buys the Rams.

"This is not about the NFL, it's not about the St. Louis Rams, it's not about me," Limbaugh said. "This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative."

Tomorrow three separate groups, one in the St Louis area will begin boycotts of the NFL, games, merchandise etc. More on that later.  As I said yesterday I'm calling for conservatives everywhere to boycott the NFL through the 2009 season.  Remember it's not for Limbaugh but for the principle that we will not let liberal thugs spread lies and rumors and threaten the right of ownership of any American.

Today on the morning show we had hundreds of calls in support of Limbaugh and this is good from a South Florida radio audience. Many of them told us that they will too boycott the NFL. Further we received an email from a source which tells us that Limbaugh will be using that money set aside for the purchase to go after those who spread the false rumors by legal means.

 I talked to a civil attorney and he said Limbaugh would have a good case and if he - as he should - pursue damages he'd more than make up for the loss. Some of the groups to be named will most likely be media outlets but specifically personalities within those groups.

 Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson may as well be named defendents. The suit will charge defamation/slander which based on the evidence will have a good chance of being proven. Simply put the statements attributed to him did in fact not come from him and this has been proved.

 That's all you need in a civil court, a 51 percent change it happened. What should be interesting would be whether or not the legal types at the network are going to stand behind these personalities even after they repeated the slander knowing the quotes were not true. In any case Limbaugh has nearly unlimited resources to go after them.

Undoing the Damage After 2010 and 2012

It's pretty much a given that the GOP will win a boat-load of seats come next November, not enough to win back the House, but enough to even things up.  We should take Congress back by 2012.


I'm predicting also that by 2012 the American people will be so ready to dump Obama that they'll chip in to by the U-Haul trucks to help him move back to Kenya.


But then the next question is how to we reverse the damage he and the Democrats have done.   Much of the Obamacare won't take effect until 2013 which means that a new conservative Congress with a new President can repeal much of the legislation before it takes a hold such as Social Security did.

Wexler Target of Probe - To Step Down from Congress

Wexler is stepping down, but not to get a new position, unless it's "THE POSITION".

There is a buzz that his past has caught up to him, having been in a recent Broward County Commissioner dust up, specific to Josephus Eggelletion.


There isn't any other confirmation besides the chatter over the radio tonigh, but we should know by tomorrow. 

Want a Real Racist? How About NBC Sports Firing Keith Olbermann

Since the media is all hyped up about false comments that Rush Limbaugh never made, how about these real racist comments from Keith Olbermann of NBC Sports. During a September 9, 2007 broadcast of NBC’s “Football Night in America,” Keith Olbermann offered the following color commentary during highlights of the Buffalo Bills/Denver Bronco game.


 


 "With the Denver drive having stalled, Roscoe Parrish on the punt return. Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles at its finest. He could go the entire distance and does and it's seven-zip Bills."

A Call for a Conservative Boycott of the NFL

In light of Roger Goodell lack of intestinal fortitude and seeking to block Limbaugh's right to ownership, I hereby call for a conservative boycott of the NFL, NFL merchandise, and further protests at NFL events.

This isn't about Limbaugh, this is about Goodell, who is an Obama supporter and obviously using that bias. Fine, conservatives make more than 70 percent of the base of NFL fans.

 I love football like anyone else but it comes time to make a stand. The first event I'll be planning will be a protest outside Landshark Stadium during the next Dolphin's home game.

 Further, I think since Goodell is abusing his position as a political statement he should be made to pay a price as well. Tomorrow I will be on local 560am talking about this.

Matthews Could Be Charged with Threats of Assault

Yes it's true.


 This on top of DUI Killer Rick Sanchez spreading a false rumor about Limbaugh, attributing something to him he hadn't said.

 Again, I think Limbaugh files a defamation lawsuit against MSNBC, and authorities look into Matthew's statement to see if DC hate crime laws have been violated.

UPDATE:  It's seems that Limbaugh has already begun legal action, it's about time.

It's Time to Call the Code Red - Snowe is on the Hit List

I've had enough, how about you?

"Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) is risking a shot at becoming the top Republican on an influential Senate committee by backing Democratic healthcare legislation, according to senators on the panel.

A Senate Democrat on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee said Republicans on the panel are threatening to vote against Snowe, who is in line for the senior GOP post that is about to come open. “Wake up,” the Democrat told a reporter last week when questioned if the Republicans would retaliate against Snowe for crossing party lines. Snowe, a potential swing vote on the Senate Finance Committee, could give Democrats a major boost Tuesday when that panel holds a final vote on Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-Mont.) bill.

She could also support the bill in the coming weeks on the Senate floor. “A vote for healthcare would be something that would weigh on our minds when it came time to vote,” said a Republican on Commerce, who said Snowe would otherwise be assured of the ranking member post if not for the healthcare debate.

Every other GOP member of Finance is expected to vote against the healthcare bill. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), the senior Republican on Commerce, is preparing to leave the chamber to run for governor in the coming weeks. The Republicans on Commerce will pick Hutchison’s replacement, with the entire conference ratifying that decision. Seniority is usually the most important consideration, but party loyalty could trump that."

Snowe is done. Forget a committee seat, we're going after her Senate Seat. Snowe's not up until 2012, but we're calling for a boycott of funding to the NRSC so long as they support her reelection.

Al Sharpton's Secret Love - He can't stop Limbaugh

Fat chance.

"The Rev. Al Sharpton has joined those imploring the National Football League to deny conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh the opportunity to buy the St. Louis Rams franchise. In a letter sent to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Monday, Sharpton wrote that he was “disturbed” to hear about Limbaugh’s interest in the Rams and asked for a meeting with Goodell “to discuss the myriad of reasons as to why [Limbaugh] should not be given an opportunity” to purchase the team. Sharpton argued that Limbaugh has been “anti-NFL” in his comments about several of the league’s players, specifically naming Philadelphia Eagles quarterbacks Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb. Limbaugh sparked controversy several years ago by contending that the media want McNabb to succeed simply because he is black. In addition, Sharpton wrote that Limbaugh’s “recent statement — that the NFL was beginning to look like a fight between the Crips and the Bloods without the weapons — was disturbing.” Limbaugh confirmed rumors last week that he and St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts are bidding for the Rams. “Dave and I are part of a bid to buy the Rams, and we are continuing the process. But I can say no more because of a confidentiality clause in our agreement with Goldman Sachs,” Limbaugh said in a statement. “We cannot and will not talk about our partners. But if we prevail, we will be the operators of the team.” Sharpton joined NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith in urging the league to prevent Limbaugh from owning a team. In an e-mail to the union’s executive committee Saturday, Smith said that he and Goodell had spoken about Limbaugh’s potential bid and learned that “this ownership consideration is in the early stages.” “But sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends,” Smith wrote. “Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred.”

Too bad it won't stop the process. Local Sports Talk Radio in Miami is reporting that the story, Limbaugh's share, is a done deal. Al Davis showed the world that attitude or quirkiness has nothing to do with the qualification to own an NFL team. Additionally the NFL isn't going to risk losing fans who favor Limbaugh. Sharpton's impact in that regard is negligible. Personally I would hope that Limbaugh sues Sharpton ass off for defamation. In any case, Limbaugh wins.

White House Whining: Fox News is a Wing of the Republican Party

No wonder Chris Wallace called them a bunch of cry babies.

"Fox News is simply "a wing of the Republican Party," a top White House aide said today. Appearing on CNN this morning, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Fox News exists simply to further the agenda of the GOP. "

Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," Dunn said. This is the second time in a week that Dunn has blasted Fox. She was quoted in Time Magazine on Thursday blasting the cable network as "opinion journalism masquerading as news."

Fox News Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente said Fox News' growing viewership speaks for itself. "An increasing number of viewers are relying on FOX News for both news and opinion," said Clemente. He added that Fox has a clear barrier between hard news programming and opinion shows.

"The average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents," he said. "So, with all due respect to anyone who still might be confused about the difference between news reporting and vibrant opinion, my suggestion would be to talk about the stories and the facts rather than attack the messenger…which over time, has never worked."

So I guess we play that game and call MSNBC, CNN and the rest of the liberal media a wing of the White House? Seems fair enough since they steadfastly refuse to do their job, much of which is responsible for putting Obama in office in the first place.

 The viewership point is key. Americans are tuning out the liberal cable shows and tuning into to Fox which means that the White House is out of tune with Americans.