HEADLINES

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

BREAKING: CARNAHAN ADMITS STAFFER WAS BEHIND OFFICE FIREBOMBING!

CARNAHAN ADMITS STAFFER WAS BEHIND OFFICE FIREBOMBING!

The suspect who firebombed Rep. Russ Carnahan's office last week was reportedly a disgruntled progressive activist employed by democrat. An unnamed source familiar with the case released the information. Suspect Chris Powers reportedly was upset because he did not get paid so he firebombed the Carnahan finance offices at 2 in the morning.
What a complete shock.

Dem operative and firebomber Chris Powers is the sweaty one pictured here on right during a rally for nationalized health care. Powers is was a paid canvasser for Russ Carnahan.

The RFT reported:

Congressman Russ Carnahan held a press conference confirming that the person St. Louis police arrested and released for last week's firebombing of his campaign headquarters did in fact work for his re-election campaign.

Carnahan did not say the man's name but did confirm that the name Chris Powers made public this morning on a right-wing blog was accurate. According to Carnahan, the suspect volunteered for his campaign in July and was hired this month as a political canvasser — a job he kept for five days before being let go for "failing to do his job."

This afternoon Daily RFT left a message with a Chris Powers listed in the St. Louis phone book but has heard no response.

Russ forgot to mention that this radical staffer also also has a history of harassing tea party patriots.







Sent from my iPhone

ObamaCare author Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) admits HE NEVER READ THE BILL before voting on it!!!

They never even read the monstrosity before ramming it down our throats. Not even the darned author! Max Baucus held a townhall where he admitted what many of us suspected all along. From Flathead Beacon via drudge, the sum of all that was wrong with the process in a few short sentences:
"I don't think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It's statutory language," Baucus said. "We hire experts."
I'm having John Conyers flashbacks:
And how pray tell did they know if it was constitutional having not read the bill? The answer: they don't care. The Constitution is now simply a stumbling block to what congresscritters want to do. They go through contortions that make a pretzel seem simple by comparison to argue, if in fact you can call it that, that their actions are constitutional. When asked about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, legislators had no answer. Many tried and fell flat on their faces. Some Democrats have given answers to such a challenge in a way that can only be labeled as 'stupid.' Some, like Sen. Merkley claim that two words - General Welfare - let them do whatever they want thus rendering the rest of the Constitution irrelevant. John Conyers claimed a nonexistent "good and welfare" clause, among other clauses he couldn't name. And then there was Phil Hare, who said"I don't worry about the Constitution on this". Of course he doesn't. Pelosi had a better answer: "are you serious?" That was it. Sen. Leahy says that nobody questions such authority (I beg to differ). Sen. Warner totally dodged the question by talking about telephones. Sen. Mary Landrieu dodged the question altogether instead referred the questioner to constitutional lawyers! Sen. Blanch Lincoln claimed that the U.S. Constitution charges Congress with "the health" of the people. Pro-life traitor Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), who traded the lives of unborn babies for 30 pieces of silver, can't even answer that question before he was re-asked by CNS News. And Sen. Bob Casey is not sure if there's 'a specific Constitutional provision'. Don't you all feel much better now about the Constitutional competence of our lawmakers now? The White House, of course, claims no 'legitimate' constitutional concern. Obama himself said that he doesn't really care how things get done as long as they do. So who's left to defend our founding document? The courts. Unfortunately, the same politicians that have abdicated their oath to uphold the constitution have been appointing activist judges to do the same.

Max Baucus, by the way, is the same one that admitted that ObamaCare has nothing to do with actual heralthcare, but rather the redistribution of wealth: Video of Sen. Max Baucus: ObamaCare bill "will have the effect of addressing (the) mal-distribution of income in America"
Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America. -Max Baucus
But don't you dare call it socialism! Funny how statements like this come out after the bill is passed. Pelosi was right when she said "We Have to Pass Our Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"
We already know what's in it because it has been tried before and shown to be an utter failure:






Sent from my iPhone

Sen. Michael Bennet (D): Trillions in Debt, "NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT"

Nothing:
1 : not any thing : no thing nothing to the imagination> 
2 : no part 
3 : one of no interest, value, or consequence nothing to me>
nothing doing
: by no means : definitely no
nothing for it
: no alternative <nothing for it but to start over>
That is the end result of Obama's miserable mismanagement, including the stimulus boondoggle - nothing. We know it. He knows it. But until recently, Democrats didn't want to admit it. For reference thou, check out the similarity between these two statements. First up, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt's own Treasury secretary, 1939:
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"
And now, Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, August 22, 2010:
"We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet, in my view we have nothing to show for it."
Creepy similarities from 2 different eras for what amounts to basically repeating the same mistake. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and that pretty much sums up the Democrat party right now. HT: drudge






Sent from my iPhone

Cash for Clunkers = Sky high prices a year later

Here's another one you could see coming a year away. 


With home prices falling, fewer people employed, and every economic indicator on the dashboard flashing red, deflation has started to become a big enough worry that the Fed has adjusted its monetary policy to account for it.  There are no such worries in the used-car industry, however.  Prices have jumped 10% overall and in some cases as much as a third for used cars, thanks not to demand as much as a restricted supply after the government destroyed billions of dollars in assets as part of its Cash for Clunkers program last year (via Instapundit):


This is something I can personally relate to.  Two years ago, I bought my then 16-year old a 2004 Saturn L300.  I paid $6,000 cash for a car that was in "extra clean" condition.  It had one owner, and just below average miles.  I got a great deal, she got a great car.

But as a typical teenager, she had a propensity to bump into things.  A telephone pole knocked off the passenger rear-view.  She backed into my Silverado.  And then, when stopping suddenly for another car pulling in front of her, her car was rear-ended and was a total loss.  The insurance company settled for $4,600, which was about right considering we had a $500 deductible. 

So, I take the $4,600 shopping for another car, and there was another 2004 L300 on the lot.  Different color, higher miles, and in very good (not extra clean) condition.  The no-haggle price?  $6,500.  This is after two years of depreciation, and for a vehicle with higher miles and not as well maintained.  I sucked it up and paid the difference—the L300 is a nice, safe care for teenagers, but as soon as I heard the price, the first thought in my mind was:

"Gee thanks, Mr. President.  You just cost me $1,900.

Gimme some feedback in the comments.







Sent from my iPhone

Morning Bell: A War We Can’t Afford to Lose

In December 2009, President Barack Obama delivered his long-awaited decision on the way forward in the War in Afghanistan and pledged 30,000 additional troops for the effort under the condition that they would begin to come home in 18 months. While praising the President's decision to send more troops, conservative lawmakers blasted the President's announcement of a deadline for withdrawal, arguing that it would undermine our allies and embolden our enemies. Yesterday, the President's policy met with another high profile critic, retiring U.S. Marine Gen. James Conway, who told reporters that the July 2011 withdrawal date has given a morale boost to Taliban insurgents who now believe they can simply wait out NATO forces.

General Conway confirmed what Heritage Foundation analysts have been warning about for the last nine months, that the deadline is "giving our enemy sustenance." Conway revealed that indeed the U.S. has intercepted communication of Taliban insurgents telling each other that they only needed to hold out for so long.

Conway is right. As we noted last year, the President's decision to impose a timeline was purely a political one, meant to appease the leftist base of the Democratic Party, not to ensure the security interests of the American people. But there are signs the Obama administration now recognizes the damage the timeline has done to U.S. strategy and is seeking to walk it back. That's good news for America as it fights a war we must win.

Last week, Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, indicated that any troop withdrawal would depend on the "situation on the ground," and on Monday, he noted that next year's deadline is "not the date when the American forces begin an exodus."

Vice President Joe Biden, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Indianapolis earlier this week, also signaled the Obama administration is changing its message on Afghanistan. During that speech, the Vice President said, "We are not leaving in 2011, we are beginning a transition." Biden also called for allowing the new strategy in Afghanistan time to succeed and gave a ringing endorsement of Gen. Petraeus. Biden said, "Don't buy into that we have failed in Afghanistan…We are now only beginning, with the right general and the right number of forces, to seek our objectives…We needed the best general we had, and we now have him."

Announcing a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops even before they had deployed was bad policy. Hopefully the Obama administration now recognizes this fact. But in order to reassure our allies and signal our enemies of U.S. commitment to the war, President Obama must unequivocally revoke the timeline.

Succeeding in Afghanistan will require more patience from the American people. A summer of high casualty rates and reports about corruption of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration are casting doubt among Americans about the effort. A recent poll shows six in ten Americans oppose the war. But the United States and its allies cannot walk away from Afghanistan before the job is done. The military's new strategy is sound, and our troops should be given the opportunity to succeed. As The Heritage Foundation's James Carafano writes:

Fighting terrorists in South Asia is not easy. But it is a worthwhile effort that offers the promise of a more enduring peace and a safer world for our civilians and allies. Now is the time to vanquish al-Qaeda and its affiliates, not give them a second lease on life. Running away would end nothing. Indeed, it would be but the prelude to more 9-11 style misery.

Maintaining that commitment won't be easy, either. While President Obama is facing criticism for imposing a withdrawal deadline from the right, he is also facing criticism from the left for backing away from his withdrawal pledge. But there is more at stake for the President than scoring political points. Hanging in the balance is the future of Afghanistan, where failure would spell the return of the Taliban, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, a new wave of terrorism in South Asia, increased potential for conflict between Pakistan and India, and the makings of the next 9-11.

For the United States, failure is not an option, it's a choice President Obama shouldn't make, and it's a result the American people should not accept.

Quick Hits:







Sent from my iPhone

Figures… Carnahan Firebomber Caught On Tape Harassing Tea Party Patriots (Video)

As reported previously
Suspect Chris Powers, an employee with the Carnahan campaign, reportedly firebombed the democrat's offices last week. Powers was reportedly a disgruntled progressive activist according to an unnamed source familiar with the case. Suspect Chris Powers was upset because he did not get paid so he firebombed the Carnahan finance offices at 2 AM in the morning.

Of course, the fact that it was a teabagger an inside job surprises no one.

Now there's this…
Dana Loesch reported today that the firebomber also harassed tea party patriots at a Russ Carnahan town hall event last fall.
Here's the video:

Anothe violent leftist.

So what are the odds that the state-run media will completely ignore this story?







Sent from my iPhone

Analysis: New home sales tumble, show downside of government intervention

Ugh. The news just doesn't get any better.  If this is a "recovery summer," I shudder to think what fall might bring.  Reuters even manages the gall to slip the media's favorite adverb, glumly reporting that new home sales plunged "unexpectedly."

The 276,000 unit annual rate of new home sales is the lowest since Commerce began the series in 1963.  Let that sink in a moment.  Not since John F. Kennedy was shot has the new home market been this dead.


Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast new home sales unchanged at a 330,000 unit pace last month.

"What we are seeing is the downside of government intervention. It had fanned expectations of a market bottom when in fact, it created a false bottom," said Tom Porcelli, a senior economist at RBC Capital Markets in New York. "We expect home sales to stay at this remarkably low range with remarkably high unemployment. There is also little demand for lending."

The housing market has wobbled following the end of a popular home tax credit in April, which had boosted sales and construction. The sector was at the center of the longest and deepest recession since Great Depression and its continued weakness is holding back the broader economic recovery.

Data on Tuesday showed sales of previously owned homes dropped in July to their slowest pace in 15 years. While the end of the tax credit is distorting the housing data, a 9.5 percent unemployment rate is also worsening the situation.

The weak sales pace last month resulted in the supply of new homes available for sale spiking to 9.1 months' worth from 8.0 months' worth in June.


The only thing the tax credit did was front-load transactions in the housing market, causing people who would likely buy anyway to do so ahead of schedule.  And, since they were probably already qualified, it means that the program needlessly added to the deficit while deceiving markets into thinking the housing sector had bottomed out.  It clearly hasn't. Combining this with yesterday's existing home sales bloodletting paints a very ugly picture for the real estate market. 

But the new home sales data are much more important in terms of economic growth, for a very big reason.  Residential Investment (RI) is a leading indicator for GDP and only reflects investment in new homes.  Sagging numbers in existing home sales don't have much of an impact on GDP, because their contribution to GDP represents transactions costs only (brokerage fees, survey cost, loan origination fees, etc).  New home sales have a much larger impact, because the value of the home itself and all associated transactions costs are counted in the measure of output.

With July figures this bad, and with very sluggish job creation over the summer, there is no indication that August and September are going to get much better. As a result, RI could be a major millstone for Q3 GDP.   We'll get the first revision in Q2 GDP tomorrow.  A key component of that will be the RI figure, which showed some strength in the preliminary release.  If the RI component is revised downward, and the current trend in employment and income continue, it doesn't portend well for Q3 GDP, or Q4 GDP going forward.

Update:  Calculated Risk has a post about the "distressing gap" between existing an new home sales, and how that gap won't be closed until inventory is worked down (especially "distressed" inventory, which isn't gonna work down until prices work down).

Gimme some feedback in the comments.







Sent from my iPhone

New Medicare Plan Will Force 3 Million Seniors To Switch Plans

Just got more infoRemember President Obama's promise that if you like your plan you can keep it? Well forget it. An analysis by research company Avalere Health shows that a plan by Medicare to try to make it simpler for consumers to pick drug coverage could force 3 million seniors to switch plans next year whether they like it or not. These seniors see their will see their prescription plan eliminated as part of a new effort by Medicare to eliminate duplicate plans that offer the similar  coverage. These seniors would not lose coverage, but they probably will see changes in their premiums and copayments.
Medicare officials dismissed the Avalere estimate without offering their own number. "Anybody who is producing that kind of analysis is simply guessing," said Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator for Medicare.
But Bonnie Washington, a senior analyst with Avalere, said the company's analysis used Medicare's specifications.

For example, Medicare has already notified insurers they will no longer be able to offer more than one "basic" drug plan in any given location. Several major prescription plans, including CVS-Caremark and AARP, offered two basic options throughout the country this year, Washington said. Eliminating that particular form of duplication among the top plans would force 2.75 million beneficiaries to find new coverage, according to Avalere's estimate.
The change in the program will help new people signing up for the plan, but it makes things more difficult for the 17.5 million seniors already in the program.  When all the changes are taken into account, as many as 3.7 million Medicare recipients may have to switch plans according to Avalere. That represents about 20% of the program's total enrollment. 
Former Medicare administrator Leslie Norwalk said the change might make things easier for people signing up for Medicare but harder for those already in the program.

"If you're in a plan that you like and you have to change it, it will be disruptive," said Norwalk, acting administrator under President George W. Bush. "It depends on how (Medicare) handles it to try to make it as seamless as possible."
The government is not famous for making things seamless. So ultimately things will be more difficult for the enrolled adults.
"Some opponents of the (health care) law may say that this is taking away choices, but we have heard from our members for years that the (drug coverage) options can be confusing," said Nora Super, AARP's top health care lobbyist. The seniors lobby supports the change. AARP's public policy branch is separate from its business side, which sponsors Medicare and other insurance plans.
That's the same AARP that helped the Progressives push through Obamacare over the objections of their own membership in order to enrich the organization through selling insurance.
"We are not reducing the number of (insurers). We are not reducing the number of quality plans," said Blum, adding that having fewer, more distinct choices will benefit seniors. "That puts beneficiaries in a stronger, rather than weaker position."
Lets see...more demand, less supply that puts beneficiaries in a weaker position. Instead of 40 or more choices in each state, seniors may have around 30 plans to pick from. Sadly America's seniors will once again be hurt at the hands of the Obama Administration and the AARP.
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com







Heritage Foundation

DrudgeFeed.com - Drudge Report RSS feed

RedState

Right Wing News

RenewAmerica

Hot Air » Top Picks

Conservative Outpost

Conservative Examiner

Michelle Malkin

Big Government

Big Journalism

Big Hollywood

Pajamas Media