News Flash: Cops Don't Have to Have ESP to Interrogate Suspects

Sorry, Miss Cleo! The police will no longer need your services in Cincinnati or any other city in the US:

The Supreme Court overturned a ruling from the appeals court that threw out a confession and a conviction in a murder case where the suspect provided monosyllabic answers to questions for three hours before finally admitting guilt, but did not explicitly invoke his right to remain silent.  The court’s decision equates that invocation with the right to an attorney, which must be explicitly demanded.

The decision that the original Cincinnati court made was foolish. What did they expect to have them do to make sure that they didn't violate their right to remain silent?

"You have the right to remain silent? Do you understand? No, no do you REALLY understand that you have the right to STFU? For the last time, REALLY?"

Come on!

The decision was 5-4, which was a bit surprising that it was more of a lopsided decision. I didn't think that it would be 9-0 like Ed thought that it should have been. I knew that there would have one or two dissenters that would not have had the common sense to see that the implication of the opposite decision would of been an unnecessary burden for our law enforcement to do their jobs and investigate crimes. They already warn them to shut up in Miranda. It is up to the person to actually shut up, if they wish.

Shocker: Iran Has Been Training, Supplying Taliban Soldiers

I need everyone to sit down. I hope that this doesn't come as a shock to any of you, but Iran is helping to fund and train the same Taliban fighters that are killing our soldiers in Afghanistan every day:

KABUL, Afghanistan - The commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan said Sunday there is "clear evidence" that some Taliban fighters have trained in Iran.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters in the Afghan capital that Iran — Afghanistan's western neighbor — has generally assisted the Afghan government in fighting the insurgent group.

"There is, however, clear evidence of Iranian activity — in some cases providing weaponry and training to the Taliban — that is inappropriate," he said. McChrystal said NATO forces are working to stop both the training and the weapons trafficking.

When you add this to the fact that despite Obama and Europe begging and pleading w Iran to not pursue a nuclear program, it shows that Obama is totally incompetant when it comes to dealing with Iran. After all, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has enough fuel for two nuclear weapons.

To be fair, it would be near impossible for anyone to deal with that knucklehead that is in charge in Iran, right now.

Pelosi to Artisans: Don't Worry About Working Ever. Taxpayers Will Take Care of Your Healthcare

I QUIT:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that thanks to the new health-care reform law, musicians and other creative types could quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents because taxpayers would fund their health care coverage.

“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”

That's great! Let us encourage all of our "artists" to quit their job and stop contributing to our economy. After all, it is those starving artists that make this economy go.

Hell, isn't blogging a form of art? Aren't I painting my masterpiece of the written word, right now? Maybe I should quit my job and blog all day long. I'll get food stamps and rent assistance. I won't have to work another day at that damn place ever again.

If people received this kind of assistance just because they claim to be an artist, there would be no stopping people who would not ordinarily care one hoot about painting, playing an instrument, or whatever to live off of the taxpayers just because they say that they are an artist. The potential for fraud would be enormous. Would potential recipients have to show some sort of proof of their status as an artisan? If so, what kind of proof would they have to give? Wouldn't any sort of "proof" be easily forged or manipulated to make them seem like they are something that they arenot??

This statement is so asinine that I cannot fathom why she said it. Does she actually believe that most Americans would agree with her? I guess her ultra-liberal, elitist base loved it, but the great majority of Americans wouldn't agree with it at all. I wish Rasmussen would poll people on whether they think that ObamaCare should be used for those "artists" who can work but quit their jobs in order to "focus on developing their talents". My guess is not too many.

GOP Senator Holds Senate Hostage: Holds Up Non-Controversial Obama Appointees, Wants Pork Sent to Alabama In Exchange For Easy Confirmation

Many Republicans are hoping to put earmarks on hold for a year, but there is one that is fighting dirty in order to keep one. Richard Shelby, a Republican Senator from Alabama, has refused to let over 70 of Obama's appointees be confirmed because an Alabama company didn't receive a 35-billion-dollar contract for a fleet of new aerial refueling tankers from the government:

A US Senator has taken the extraordinary step of blocking more than 70 of US President Barack Obama's nominees amid a dispute over a lucrative US Air Force tanker deal, senate aides said Friday.

Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, placed a blanket "hold" in part because of the feud pitting Airbus parent EADS and its partner Northrop Grumman against Boeing, his office said.

"Senator Shelby is holding all of the president’s nominees pending on the Executive Calendar," a total of "70-plus" people, said a spokeswoman for Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Regan Lachapelle.

While a Shelby spokesman stubbornly claims that the hold is only because of “national security concerns” and not pork, simple logic would lead me to conclude otherwise. I don’t know what in the world about this contract bid would concern national security, unless he believes that Boeing has some sort of mole in their company that might leak out the blueprints of the tankers or sabatoge them. However, the company has no history of such leaks, or they wouldn’t be in the running for the contract in the first place. It is a far more scenario that Senator Shelby is holding out to put pressure on the Administration to grease the wheels and give the contract to the company in Alabama instead of Boeing.

This hold makes little sense considering that the current Obama Administratin is not personally involved in the deal, and those at the Pentagon that are involved are the same ones that were there under  the Bush administration.

Whether or not the FBI offices  should continue to be funded for testing IEDs, may be a slightly more of a valid concern, but it is still not immediate enough appropriate to hang up Obama’s nominations because of it. It’s not so serious that gridlocking the Senate is necessary to resolve the issue immediately.

The only reason why Shelby should of held his consent was because of a valid complaint about the candidate’s views or qualifications. However, I seriously doubt that all 70 or so nominees are so bad that they  would a full hearing before the Senate in order to be confirmed. That would just delay the inevitable and throw a monkey wrench in the Senate’s schedule causing them to have to stop whatever else they’re doing to confirm them. This type of ploy is the exact reason why people have coined them the “Do-Nothing Congress”.

It , also, seems ridiculous that after the GOP spent the last year complaining about Obama taking so long to make a decision about the who he was going to nominate to the various positions,  one of those Republicans are now blocking them, and it is not for any valid reasons. It is so that he can bring home the bacon back to his home state of Alabama. Pathetic. Shelby should be ashamed of himself, and the rest of the Republicans should rebuke him for this and get him to reverse his hold.

SC GOP Senators Graham, DeMint: Propose a 1 Year Earmark Ban & Balanced Budget Amendment

While the Democrats on laying the groundwork to spend even more, top GOP senators are seeking to stop the bleeding with a ban on the notorious earmarks that bring money back into their states:

South Carolina's senators urged Congress on Thursday to institute a one-year ban on "earmarks," or funding for congressional lawmakers' pet projects.

Republican Sens. Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham also called on their colleagues to approve a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, which would bar the government from spending more than it takes in.

Nine other lawmakers joined their call, including perhaps the most famous earmark opponent of all -- Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential candidate.

This could be a ground-breaking step to getting government spending under control, if they keep their own promise. Considering that we're talking about politicians, I'm not inspired with great confidence that they will. I just hope that this isn't just publicity stunt.

Unfortunately, this has very small chance of passing in the Senate, much less the ultra-partisan House. Surely, both Graham and DeMint had to be aware of this which tells me that this might just be more of a stunt than a genuine proposal.

What Freeze?: Administration Buys 30-sec Spot During the Super Bowl With Taxpayer Money To Advertise Upcoming Census

The Obama Administration is going Is the kind of frivolous spending that Obama wanted Congress to put a freeze on? Perhaps, he should lead by example. Instead, his administration seems content to join right in with the rest of them:

Taxpayers might want to pay close attention to this Sunday’s Super Bowl broadcast or they’ll miss Uncle Sam’s 30-second, $2.5-million reminder to stand up and be counted.

That’s what the Census Bureau paid CBS to get their message notched somewhere between a National Lampoon reprisal, a weird dude with big glasses, a beer-can house and men without pants.

And, that’s just a fraction of what the bureau plans to spend this year to get Americans to answer a simple, 10-question survey.

The bureau is spending $133 million between January and May — or, more than $13 million for each of 10 questions, one of which reads: What is your telephone number? — to publicize the national head-count. Part of that effort is the Super Bowl ad, which Kendall Johnson, a spokeswoman for the bureau, confirmed Wednesday to FoxNews.com cost $2.5 million to air.

Come on, this is ridiculous. Not only did they buy air time, they did it on the most expensive program of the year. How can he explain this away? What is the benefit of this ad to Joe Q Taxpayer? None. With the ad, they are trying to get people to fill out a small questionnaire from the Census Bureau. How many jobs did it create? Maybe a couple extra bean counters. Was that all worth $2.5 million for 30 seconds of air time? Hell, no!

What's even sadder is that this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the $133 million they're spending over 5 months to promote the Census.

We Aren't Spending Enough: House Raises Deficit Spending Ceiling By Another $1.9 Trillion, Receives No GOP Support/Update: Democrats Applaud

One week after Obama declared a "spending freeze" on "non-security discretionary spending", the House has voted to spend $1.9 Trillion morethan we have ever spent before:

The House on Thursday voted to allow the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper in debt — or about $6,000 more for every U.S. resident.

The measure, approved 217-212, would raise the cap on federal borrowing to $14.3 trillion. That's enough to keep Congress from having to vote again before the November elections on an issue that is feeding a sense among voters that the government is spending too much and putting future generations under a mountain of debt to do it.

The legislation only passed by 5 votes. After you take into account that not one Republican voted for the bill, Pelosi would have had keep her fellow Democrats in line and not have too many defections in order to pass it. She barely managed to get just enough. However, not all Democrats were amused by this passing:

"I can't think of a more reckless or irresponsible act. Defaulting is not an option," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "If the United States defaults, investors will lose confidence that the U.S. will honor its debts in the future.

There had to be a provision added to the bill in order to get just enough Democrats on board to pass the bill. However, it seems to be punishing the wrong people, if Congress overspends the ceiling, the American people:

To help win passage, Democrats are also adopting — in a vote later Thursday afternoon — budget rules designed to curb a spiraling upward annual deficit — projected by Obama to hit a record $1.56 trillion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. The new rules would require future spending increases or tax cuts to be paid for with either cuts to other programs or equivalent tax increases.

If the rules are broken, the White House budget office would force automatic cuts to programs like Medicare, farm subsidies and unemployment insurance. Current rules lack such teeth and have commonly been waived over the past few years at a cost of almost $1 trillion.

So, if you are a farmer, a senior citizen, or unemployed, screw you. They're going to steal your money and spend it on whatever they want to spend it on. Congress can spend your money better than you can. To be fair, Medicaid, Social Security and food stamps will be exempt from the cuts, but the cuts that would be made would hurt those who are hurting from the bad economy the most. They should find somewhere else to cut spending.

The article goes on to point out that, in a few years, taxes would have to be raised in order to pay for this spending frenzy.

This spending orgy is getting way out-of-line. We need to be spending less on frivlous pet projects not spending more.

Update: The Democrats applaud getting the ability to spend more of your children's money:

Food For Thought: Scientists Communicate With People That Have Been in a Coma For Years: Remember Terri Schiavo?

This just something that I saw that I found very interesting and should be seen by all those who have to make the tough life-and-death decision about whether or not to pull the plug.

Weeks Before Going to Vegas to Campaign For Reid Obama Tells People Not to Spend Money In Vegas, Again, Update: Las Vegas Mayor Says That Obama's a "Slow Learner"

Two weeks after it was announed that Obama will go to Nevada to campaign for the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid, Obama has the brilliant idea of speaking bad of an industry that is critical to Nevada's economy, yet again. It's sad to see that Obama didn't learn his lesson the first time that he criticized Americans spending money in Las Vegas, but I guess not:

President Obama is catching heat from Nevada lawmakers and business leaders regarding his comments Tuesday criticizing trips to Las Vegas.

During the president's town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, he discussed the need to curb spending during tough economic times.  "When times are tough, you tighten your belts," the president said. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."

While his overall point of not spending foolishly is valid, he should probably steer clear of focusing on all his critical remarks at one particular city, especially one that he'll need in November to get Reid re-elected.

These remarks have drawn sharp retorts from many representatives from Nevada, including the Las Vegas Mayor:

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said during a hastily called news conference that Obama is no friend to Las Vegas and would not be welcomed here if he visits.

"I'll do everything I can to give him the boot," Goodman said. "This president is a real slow learner."

Goodman and others are worried that Obama's words will discourage visitors from coming to Las Vegas and depress the industry further.

"Enough is enough!" Democratic Congresswoman Shelley Berkley said in a statement. "President Obama needs to stop picking on Las Vegas and he needs to let Americans decide for themselves how and where to spend their hard-earned vacation dollars."

It even caused Harry Reid, the man that Obama will go campaign for later this month, to go after the president:

Reid, one of Obama's closest allies, issued a statement headlined "Reid to Obama: 'Lay off Las Vegas'" and was unusually blunt in his reaction.

"The President needs to lay off Las Vegas and stop making it the poster child for where people shouldn't be spending their money," Reid said. "I would much rather tourists and business travelers spend their money in Las Vegas than spend it overseas."

Mayor Goodman really took Obama to school in response to the president's statement. In fact, he went so far to say that the President of the United States was no longer welcome in his city because of his comments, and if he did show up he would "give him the boot back to Washington and to visit his failures back there."

Unemployment is already high there, and discouraging people from going there for vacations will just force the tourism industry to layoff even more workers. Good job, Obama.

Comedy Gold: Gloria Allred Chastises Tebow Pro-Life Ad For Not Including "All The Facts", Megyn Kelly Exposes Her Hypocrisy

Gloria Allred is all in a huff about the Tim Tebow pro-life ad that will air during the Super Bowl because they didn't mention that abortions were illegal, when Tebow's mother decided to have the 2007 Heisman winner despite the fact that it would endanger her own life and will go after CBS, if the end up airing the ad. However, Gloria, apparently, didn't do any research herself because, as Megyn Kelly points out it was legal in the Philippines, if the mother's life was in danger, which it was. Plus, she torched on Allred's attempt at violating Tebow and his mother's right of free speech. You can tell by the venom coming out of Ms. Allred that she clearly despises anyone that would dare to challenge the sanctity of abortion would be willing to violate people's free speech to protect it. Even though she claims that she is respects abortion opponents free speech, she says that she will "go after" CBS, if they air it. How is that respecting the Tebow's and CBS' free speech rights, if she goes after people for saying something that she doesn't agree with and tries to stop them from saying it? It just boggles the mind.

Video: Rick Santorum: Obama's Claim of Not Being An Ideologue Is Like Nixon Claiming "I'm Not A Crook"

Here's a palate cleanser for you. You have to wait until about the 5:20 mark of the video, but you will hear the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania and current FNC contributor liken Obama to Nixon regarding the president's claim of not being an ideologue that he made last Friday, when he was speaking with the Republican caucus. Santorum made the comparison on the Hannity show, when they were discussing whether or not Americans are beginning to distrust Obama.

Gibbs Does Alot of Assuming About Obamacare

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, made some very interesting assumptions about Obamacare:

“We're one vote away from getting health care reform,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. “We think it's good policy…The President has said we should be realistic about what our assumptions are, but also assume -- if we're going to propose something, I don't think it makes much sense to not assume that it should be in the budget.”

The first problem with that is the legislation has stalled especially in the Senate. Harry Reid says that there's "no rush" to pass the bill. Why is there no rush? Well, it's probably because Democrats that are up for re-election this year, like Blanche Lincoln (AR), Russ Feingold (WI),and Reid himself, are getting walloped by their constituents at home, especially in traditionally red states. Even those not up for re-election this year, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, are feeling the heat for their votes. Not to mention that people have lost faith in the bill.

Let's get to what he was main aspect of the budget that he was referring to in that statement:

President Obama’s budget projects $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade – some of which comes from health care reform legislation.

“We took a very simple approach,” said Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag. “Since both the House and Senate had passed legislation, we took the average of the two” using numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.

That means the administration is counting on $150 billion in deficit reduction from a health care reform bill that is -- for now -- stalled in Congress with no clear path forward.

Basically, Obama is taking credit for an alleged reduction in the deficit that most likely won't happen. This type of misinformation is what has become all too typical from this Administration. In reality, he is a spendthrift not a deficit hawk. He trying perform a magic trick that David Copperfield wouldn't dare to try: making the American people believe that he's worried about the deficit.

Bad Timing or Another Cornhusker Kickback for Ben Nelson's Support for Obamacare

There has been another questionable money transfer given to Nebraska power structure. This time was received by Nebraska Democratic Party from the Democratic National Party only four days after Sen. Nelson's "yes" vote for the Senate's healthcare reform bill:

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: The timing doesn't look good. Four days after Sen. Ben Nelson voted in favor of the Senate health care reform bill, the Democratic National Committee cut a $459,000 check to the Nebraska Democratic Party, which was promptly used to tout Nelson’s "courageous" vote. Three days later, the DNC sent the Nebraska party another $20,000.


The transfer is noted in the last FEC filings and was first noticed by the left-leaning Americablog, which says the payment looks like a "payoff": “I'm sure a lot of Democratic candidates running in 2010 would appreciate that kind of spending on their behalf, too. Nelson, however, isn't up for reelection until 2012, so why get the money now, only four days after Nelson voted for the weakened health care bill?”

The DNC says this was not a payoff; it was an effort to defend Nelson in the face of unrelenting attacks by critics of health care reform.

“We, the Democratic Party, were defending a Democratic senator from attacks from the health insurance industry and other special interests for his support of reform. Senator Nelson is not the first Democrat we have defended from these attacks and he will not be the last. We've spent money directly in support of House Democrats who have supported reform in the form of TV and radio ads and we've also worked with state parties to defend Democrats like Senators Nelson, Lincoln and Dorgan who have stood up to the insurance industry in support of reform,” said DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan.

The DNC gives money to every state's parties at one time or another. So, having the national party give a state's party money is not odd. It is the timing that makes this very suspicious. This didn't happen a month after the vote or 6 months, or even a year. It was four freaking days. The only thing that might make it seem unrelated is the fact that Nelson is not up for re-election until 2012. Still, the coincidental timing is too much to ignore.

The True Story Behind ACORN's Pimp Daddy O'Keefe's Arrest

Since the story broke of James O'Keefe's arrest, I have been thinking of what I thought of it, and I didn't want to jump to any conclusions as the mainstream media did. So, I waited until I received all of the facts before I posted anything. Now, we know what went on in New Orleans last tuesday and why he did what he did.

Briefly, here is what happened:

An official close to the investigation said one of the four was arrested with a listening device in a car blocks from the senator's offices. He spoke on condition of anonymity because that information was not included in official arresting documents.

According to the FBI affidavit, Flanagan and Basel entered the federal building at 500 Poydras Street on Monday about 11 a.m., dressed as telephone company employees, wearing jeans, fluorescent green vests, tool belts and hard hats. When they arrived at Landrieu's 10th-floor office, O'Keefe was already in the office and had told a staffer he was waiting for someone to arrive.

When Flanagan and Basel entered the office, they told the staffer they were there to fix phone problems. At that time, the staffer, referred to only as Witness 1 in the affidavit, observed O'Keefe positioning his cell phone in his hand to videotape the operation. O'Keefe later admitted to agents that he recorded the event.

After being asked, the staffer gave Basel access to the main phone at the reception desk. The staffer told investigators that Basel manipulated the handset. He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone, and said the main line wasn't working. Flanagan did the same.

They then told the staffer they needed to perform repair work on the main phone system and asked where the telephone closet was located. The staffer showed the men to the main General Services Administration office on the 10th floor, and Flanagan and Basel went in. There, a GSA employee asked for the men's credentials. They said they left them in their vehicle.

The U.S. Marshal's Service apprehended all four men shortly thereafter.

This left everyone wondering just what the hell was O'Keefe, the man who went into ACORN offices around the country posing as a pimp in order to secretly videotape employees attempting to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the US and get away with it, and cohorts doing. Of course, liberals and most of the mainstream media jumped to the conclusion that he was trying to tape Senator Mary Landrieu's own phone conversations. However, as the story unfolded and the FBI affidavit was released, it turned out that the intent wasn't so nefarious but just as illegal:

A law enforcement official says the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls.

Instead, the official says, the men, led by conservative videomaker James O'Keefe, wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative. They were apparently motivated, the official says, by criticism that when Sen. Landrieu became a big player in the health care debate, people in Louisiana were having a hard time getting through on the phones to register their views. 

That is, the official says, what led the four men to pull this stunt -- to see how the local staffers would react if the phones went out. Would the staff just laugh it off, or would they express great concern that local folks couldn't get through?

Yesterday, O'Keefe released a statement discussing what happened in Landrieu's New Orleans office. Here is what he was doing in his own words:

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

He admitted that he probably should have taken a different approach in investigating Landrieu, but he wasn't

He went on to lambaste the media for jumping to conclusions and blowing the story up in order to demonize him:

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.”  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Obviously, this was way out of line and a serious felony. He should be greatly chastised for it. On the other hand, since this story broke, liberals are already trying to use this to get ACORN out of the doghouse by implying that O'Keefe must have used similar tactics to twist what really happened in the various ACORN offices, but it shouldn't be used, as it most definitely has been, to minimize his accomplishments and absolve ACORN more all of its illegal activities.

Video: NYC Mayor, NY Democratic Senators Flop & Don't Want Terror Trials In NYC Anymore, Claim Danger, Cost Is Too High...Um Duh!

Mayor Bloomberg of New York City and the Democratic New York Senators all echoed the same sudden concern in this video for having the terror trials in New York City. Where was all this concern for the safety, cost, and economic disruption a few months ago, when Obama first tabled the idea? There was not one peep out any of those three. Where did did this revelation come from? Ed Morrissey thinks that he knows:

Until the attempted bombing of Northwest 253 on Christmas Day, Obama appeared to have some momentum on the law-enforcement approach.  However, the outrage over reading a terrorist his rights and providing him an attorney rather than a lengthy interrogation to discover what we could about any impending attacks has seriously derailed both the trial process and the closure of Gitmo.  After all, if the terrorists can’t get tried in federal court, they will have to be both tried and held in military custody — which means Gitmo, at least for the foreseeable future.

Now, they remember that there are those out there that want to kill us. I swear that I've heard that from someone else. I can't remember where. Oh yeah!

It seems that Obama might be finally caving into bipartisan pressure to keep KSM out of NYC:

White House officials have told the Justice Department to consider other venues for the 9/11 terror trial that was to be held in lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.

The decision came after Mayor Bloomberg and other politicians across the state railed against President Obama's plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan Federal Court.

Attorney General Eric Holder now has to think of other places where the trial could take place, officials said.

It was not immediately clear if the reassessment means the trial will definitely be moved out of the city.

Where can we move them? Maybe (this may be a crazy thought)...Gitmo?

Well, that is probably wishful thinking but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. If New York City doesn't want them there, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a city that would want to take on that albatross.

It's good to see that Obama and some of the Democrats have come to their senses a bit. Hopefully, they'll do their trials in Gitmo where they belong.

Obama Gives Stone Cold Salute to 9/11 Survivors, Families

The Obama Administration has outdone themselves. According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the federal government will stop paying the doctor bills for 9/11 survivors that are suffering from complications resulting from the terrorist attack:

The state's two senators and 14 House members met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just hours before President Obama implored in his speech to the nation for Congress to come together and deliver a government that delivers on its promises to the American people.

So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11, and the untold numbers now getting sick.

"I was stunned — and very disappointed," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who like most of the other legislators had expected more of a discussion on how to more forward.

"To say the least, I was flabbergasted," said Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.

The 9/11 bill would spend about $11 billion over 30 years to care for the growing numbers of people getting sick from their service at Ground Zero, and to compensate families for their losses.

The bill is only $11B over 30 years. That is only about $367M per year. Yes, that is still a lot of money, but is a far cry that Obama wants to spend on Obamacare. The health bills will be over $1T over a much shorter amount of time. It's more than likely that Obamacare will cost over $11B per year, instead of over the course of thirty.

Normally, I don't think that the government should be paying for people's health care, but this is for the victims from a terrorist attack and an act of war. The circumstances are much different.

Why would Obama do this? This could only hurt him politically with everyone not just one side or the other. I know that his proposal of a spending freeze shows that he is trying to pivot and position himself as more of a deficit hawk and not a free-spender, but this is the wrong thing to cut. This will be a PR nightmare for him, if it ever gets into the consciousness of Americans. Of course, the mainstream media seems to be ignoring this story, but it may be too big to hide. If it does, he'll regret it.

Dem: They Told Us Not to Call It Stimulus, Although That's What It Is-Porkulus Lite

A California Democrat was caught on tape during a telephone town hall admitting what conservatives already knew and have been saying for months. The proposed "Jobs Bill" is actually just another mini-stimulus bill. Audio here:

Honest leadership … open government … and the Tooth Fairy.  Breitbart and Naked Emperor News catches Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) telling his constituents in a telephonic town hall meeting that the new stimulus bill Democrats will promote in coming weeks is “pretty much similar” to Porkulus, just smaller in scale — which isn’t exactly news, since even Democratic leadership isn’t foolish enough to think they can get another $787 billion after getting nothing more than the loss of 3.4 million jobs from the first one.  In an Orwellian admission, Sherman tells listeners that he’s been told not to call it a stimulus bill, but a “jobs bill,” even though he also admits that the jobs won’t come for years later...

“I’ve been pushing for aid to state and local governments.  First, because my own state is having such severe problems.  And second, from a macroeconomic standpoint, we’re trying to have jobs now, and construction projects, for example — they talk about them being shovel ready, but even if you’re ready to start building a bridge now, a big chunk of that work is going to be done in 2013, 2014.”

Considering that not even half of the money allocated in the first stimulus bill hasn't even been spent, yet. Why must we already pass another one? Shouldn't we spend that money first? This the Democrats in Congress trying to look busy, in order to claim that they are doing something, anything to help create jobs.

The sad fact is that Congress can do very little to stimulate the economy, and what they can do, cut taxes, they aren't doing. A spending spree will not do any long-lasting good. It may create a few government jobs, but it won't create nearly enough private sector jobs to justify the massive expenditure.

Democrats in SEC Overstep Their Authority Forcing Companies to Post Global Warming Risks

They are at it, again. This time it is the Democrats of the SEC that are trying to over reach in the name of global warming:

A politically divided Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Wednesday to make clear when companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change.

The commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided to require that companies disclose in their public filings the impact of climate change on their businesses — from new regulations or legislation they may face domestically or abroad to potential changes in economic trends or physical risks to a company.

Chairman Mary L. Schapiro and the two Democrats on the commission supported the new requirements, while the two Republicans vehemently opposed them.

“I can only conclude that the purpose of this release is to place the imprimatur of the commission on the agenda of the social and environmental policy lobby, an agenda that falls outside of our expertise and beyond our fundamental mission of investor protection,” Republican commissioner Kathleen L. Casey said.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air analyzes this new development perfectly in his post:

Clearly, Casey correctly diagnoses the Democrats’ intentions on this point.  They want to highlight the potential damage that some corporations do through carbon emissions, while highlighting the benefits from others who play along on AGW.  Putting this in the jurisdiction of the SEC is a two-fer for the Obama administration — they can claim regulatory gains on both AGW and Wall Street.

But this may hold the potential for enormous backfire.  With the cap-and-trade legislation still on the docket, all of these corporations will have to forecast for higher energy prices, more restrictive manufacturing and service standards, and the costs of retrofitting.  The Obama administration and Democrats in Congress have consistently and drastically underestimated the impact of their bills on the private sector.  Now, by forcing companies to analyze the impact of their environmental agendas on their bottom lines, the American public can get a much clearer and much less optimistic take on cap-and-trade and carbon-tax regulations.  Because those reports will be part of the public record, analysts can compile a daunting picture of the burdens the Democratic agenda will create on private business and economic growth.

This effort still should have been killed as a ridiculous overreach on regulation.  Now that the SEC has forced the matter, their Democratic allies will shortly have reason to regret it.

The SEC is supposed to regulate and police Wall Street not carbon emissions. That is the job of Congress to pass bills like that. All this does is set up the corporations that use carbon-based energy to be demonized by the left and will attempt to shame them into turn to less efficient means of energy production, which will in turn raise energy prices, anyway. The Democrats are trying to sneak cap-and-trade through the back door. It should not go unnoticed by the American people.

Democrats: Forget Blaming Bush Just Call All Conservatives Whackjobs Etc, That'll Win Us Elections

After Coakley crashed and burned using the time-honored tradition of the Democrats campaigning against Bush, it seems that Democrats have seen the light and won't be using the "blame Bush" campaign platform, at least not as much:

“Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical – yet time-sensitive –opportunity for Democratic candidates,” a DSCC memo, obtained by CNN, states. “We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.”

Specifically, the DSCC wants Democratic candidates to pin down their likely opponents on several hot-button issues, including:

- Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S.citizen?

- Do you think the Tenth Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum healthcare coverage standards?

- Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism, and should never have been created in the first place?

- Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

- Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

Basically, they want to pin every conservative as a whackjob or, as Bob Beckel so eloquently put it, “birthers, ‘baggers, and blowhards”. Is this a good strategy to use? Not really, but it may be the best that they can do, after burning almost every bridge they had built with independents:

They’ve got nothing left to offer independents, as Brown’s win proved only too well, and they’re too fatally compromised by ObamaCare to recast themselves as small-government types now. If they want to win the center, their best bet — which doesn’t mean it’s a good bet — is to screech about “birthers, ‘baggers, and blowhards,”

This is really just a desperate attempt by the Democrats to distract from their own real incompetence and the issues, in order to make themselves look better to the electorate. However, I believe that most people will see through their talk and see it as the desperate charade that it really is.

Feingold Suggests Employer Tax Credits for Hiring New Workers

A Democrat actually put forth a good idea the other day that might actually increase job growth instead of killing it, for a change:

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) “introduced legislation today to help businesses hire workers and bring down unemployment through the creation of a jobs tax credit,” according to an e-mailed press release.

"The legislation creates a temporary jobs tax credit over the next two years for businesses that hire new employees, expand work hours for their current workforce, or simply raise worker pay."

This will help offset any extra cost that businesses will incur, when they hire a new employee. That could encourage employers to hire more without so much trepidation. My only worry is that they don't add more wasteful spending on such legislation that will offset any progress made from the tax credit.

Obama to Proposes "Spending Freeze" After Overseeing Spending Binge

Feeling the heat from the American people for spending like on a drunken sailor on a three-day pass that has culminated in a conservative Republican, Scott Brown, to win a Senate seat in a very liberal Massachusetts, Obama claims that he is now a deficit hawk. He will look to put a $250 Billion freeze on government spending:

In his budget for Fiscal Year 2011, to be presented on Monday, February 1, President Obama will propose a three-year hard freeze on non-security discretionary spending, to last from 2011 through 2013.I

This will save $250 billion over the next decade, senior administration officials told reporters. By 2015, non-security discretionary spending will be at its lowest level as a component of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product in 50 years.

The announcement will come at a time when the White House and Democrats are trying to deal with voters angry about a dysfunctional Washington, DC, with many concerned about the deficit and out-of-control government spending. The president and his team have said for months that he would address deficits in his State of the Union address, knowing that the massive spending in the Wall Street bailout and stimulus package would make many Americans uneasy, but the upset victory of Sen.-elect Scott Brown, R-Mass., underscored that concern.

It seems very hypocritical and more lip-service from Obama than a genuine attempt at curbing excess federal spending. He proposes the freeze after spending over $1 Trillion with the porkulus bill and before wanting to spend about another $1T on Obamacare. House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) had a great retort to the freeze:

“given Washington Democrats’ unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest."

This is truly a magic act that Obama is trying to pull over the American people. He claims to want to stop wasteful spending, while going for massively wasteful bills. If he truly wants to be taken seriously as a deficit hawk, he must rescind the porkulus bill and veto any health care bill that Congress puts in front of him, of it includes massive spending.

Obama, Congress Throw DC Underprivileged Children Under the School Bus

It has been a fear of many poor children and their parents that live in Washington DC that a Democratic-led government would cut funding to a successful program that would give scholarships to children, so they can go to private schools, instead of the abysmal DC public schools. Unfortunately, their fears have recently been realized:

Black leaders say that President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Congress have put politics ahead of helping low-income children in the District of Columbia by refusing to support a program that allows 1,700 children to go to a private school, including the school Obama’s two daughters attend.
 
Congress did not reauthorize funding for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in the 2010-11 federal budget, ending a program that has helped thousands of disadvantaged children attend some of the best schools in the nation’s capitol since its inception in 2004.
 
And while Obama backed Congress’ move to continue funding scholarships for children already in the program until they graduate from high school, no new children will receive the $7,500 annual tuition scholarship.

 
Juan Williams, a Democratic pundit from Fox News, took a huge exception to this turn of events:

“The cancellation of the program, in my view, has been an unprecedented move by the federal government, because this is a historic moment, historic government spending in our nation’s history – a time when the U.S. Treasury is giving hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street bailouts,” Juan Williams, political commentator, said at a press conference held last week at the National Press Club in Washington.
 
“Congress chose, in the midst of all this spending, to end a very small, $13 million dollar program that, according to the Department of Education (DOE), has increased and improved the reading scores of low-income children here in the District of Columbia,” he said.
 
“The move is a matter of politics, in my opinion, plain and simple,” Williams said. “Powerful special interest groups like the National Education Association are clearly committed to destroying and denying these programs as they benefit low-income families and denying them the same opportunities that powerful Washington politicians and privileged people take for granted – the power to choose a safe and effective school for their children.”
 
Williams, a Democrat and regular commentator for National Public Radio, said his own personal story – growing up in poverty with a single mom devoted to seeing that her children got an education – makes helping disadvantaged children a moral imperative. He also said Obama, who attended a private school on scholarships while growing up in Hawaii, should share his passion for school choice.

Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, showed little reluctance to pulling the plug on the successful program, while giving a lame excuse:

As CNSNews.com reported, when asked why the Obama administration did not support the reauthorization of OSP, Duncan said in a statement that school vouchers would not fix D.C.’s failing schools.
 
“I appreciate the desire of every family to have the best possible education for their child,” Duncan said. “I also understand that our role is to support children, parents and educators. That is why this Administration is devoting more resources and supports more ambitious reform of our public school systems than any administration in history.”

Let me translate more "resources" means more money. Just like the Democrats always do, they want to throw money at the broken system hoping that the money will magically cure all of the system's ills.

Instead they should change the system and give more money to the students so that they can attend the school's that are doing it better, until the public system improves.

Why won't they do it that way? Two words: teachers' union.

Change We Can Believe In? Obama Has Higher Disapproval Than Any Other President Going Into Their 2nd Year Evah

Well, it's definitely official, now. Obama's honeymoon with most of the American people is over. This does not bode well for Obama's agenda:

President Obama’s job approval in the January 2-4 Gallup Daily tracking was the second lowest in the modern era for Presidents starting their second year in office. Obama opened the new year with a 50%-44% job approval rating which was marginally higher than President Reagan’s 49%-40% rating at the start of 1982, but lower than the ratings held by both President Carter and President Clinton at the start of their second years.

Obama’s humdrum approval rating is undoubtedly causing anxiety and sleepless nights in the White House and in Democratic Party circles. An underwhelming approval rating not only diminishes support for Obama’s legislative agenda (see Reform, Health Care), it also has implications for House Democrats’ electoral fortunes. As Glen Bolger detailed in his post last week, a President’s job approval has a significant effect on his party’s gains or losses in the mid-term House elections. At 50%, Obama’s approval rating sits at the tipping point at which incumbent party losses in the House go from bad to worse.

One thing that this post doesn't point out is the disapproval ratings. It is the highest of any other US president since they started doing presidential approval polls during FDR's presidency. It looks like the low approval of his stimulus bill, health reform and cap-and-tax proposals have caught up to his rhetoric and charisma. Feel the hope and change.

Coakley Claims There's No More We Can Do in Afghanistan, Our Job There is Done or Something

The special election to replace the recently departed Sen. Ted Kennedy is set to take place in Massachusetts a week from today, January 19th. It has been a brief but intense battle in between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown. Polls have it anywhere in between a Coakley blowout to a Brown 1-point victory. However, it's going to be very tough to turn the very liberal state purple. If the Republicans pull it off it'll break the Democrat's filibuster-proof majority, after holding it for only one year.

They had their final debate yesterday. Coakley, of course, played the "Bush Sucks" card that all Democrats have been using to garner support for the past three years.

Brown went after Coakley for being soft on terrorists, which is a normal talking point to hit Democrats with during campaigns. However, Coakley said something about the War on Terror that seemed to justify all of Brown's accusations:

Coakley, the state attorney general, said she disagreed with Obama's decision and believes there are better ways to fight terrorist organizations than sending troops into every country where they have a presence. She also said it's time to bring home the troops still in Afghanistan.

"This is not about sending troops everywhere where we think al-Qaida is," she said. "I think we have done what we can in Afghanistan."

She is, basically, wanting to waive the white flag in Afghanistan. This would be a disaster as the Taliban and Al-Quaeda would no doubt return more emboldened then ever. They would claim a victorty over their "Great Satan", the United States. There would be no stopping them as they would feel like they could get away with pulling off further attacks as America would eventually cave.

In contrast, Brown supported the troop surge in Afghanistan and spoke out against letting captured terrorists "lawyer up".

Healthcare reform bill was, also, debated as, predictably, Brown opposed and Coakley unequivocally supports the bill, but it was the Afghanistan issue that really brought out how liberal Martha Coakley really is.

PS: Here's a video that I thought was really telling of this point:

Democrats Hit Replay Button: Candidates Re-Use Bush As GOP Bogeyman

Every time I hear a Democrat talk, I keep having to look at my calendar to make sure that I did step through a time portal and leap back to 2008. No, it turns out that I haven't. It is now 2010, and the Democrats are still blaming Bush for their lack of results:

Democrats swear its not 1994 all over. From the way they're talking, you'd think it was 2006.

Top Democrats are reformatting one of the main talking points from the year they took back the House and Senate, tying opponents in local elections to George W. Bush.

“The only playbook [Republicans] have is the playbook they had for the previous eight years, which drove the economy into a ditch that we're continuing to dig ourselves out of,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told The Daily Caller.

Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, cast the election in similar terms.

"Either we return to the failed economic policies of the past or we press forward and continue to focus on what’s most important, which is jobs, jobs, jobs,” he said, in a phone interview.

“If we allow this election to simply be a referendum on us, and not be one in which we remind the electorate where Republicans left the country when Barack Obama took office … then we will face the consequences of not having an election of contrasts,” Menendez said. “If we have an election of contrasts, which we clearly will — our candidates fully understand that this will be an election of contrasts in each and every state — we will fare well.”

Apparently, their only play in their playbook is the "Bush sucks" play.

They want to keep blaming Bush for the bad economy that Obama inherited, and there was some validity to that argument, at first. Bush didn't do a great job of reigning in companies, like Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, when he had the chance. He didn't take a stand against those who were covering for them, like ACORN, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. However, the further we get into Obama's presidency the more it becomes his recession, as well.

Obama and Congress passed the stimulus monstrosity to keep us out of a prolonged recession and keep unemployment from hitting 10%. Unfortunately, neither happened. When will they find a new target and strategy?

How can we trust Democrats, like Markell, who claim that they are all about "jobs, jobs, jobs", when they have such a lousy track record for creating an economic atmosphere for job creation, so far?

N Dakota: Sen Dorgan (D) Won't Run For Re-election, Opens a Huge Door For a Likely Republican Gain

A bombshell was dropped on the newswire late today:

Sen. Byron Dorgan, a 18-year veteran Democrat, dropped a late-day bombshell, announcing he will retire when his term ends this year. Dorgan's announcement represents an opportunity for Republicans: North Dakota is a Republican-leaning state, where President Obama got just 45% of the vote last year.

In a statement just released by his office, Dorgan says he wants "to make time for other priorities" after more than 30 years in public life. He insists he's not disillusioned with politics, though he did express dismay over the increasingly partisan tone on Capitol Hill. Here is what Dorgan, 67, said in his statement:

"This decision does not relate to any dissatisfaction that I have about serving in the Senate. Yes, I wish there was less rancor and more bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate these days. But still, it is a great privilege to serve and I have the utmost respect for all of the men and women with whom I serve. . . And although he inherited an economy in serious trouble, I remain confident that President Obama is making the right decisions to put our country back on track. Further, my decision has no relationship to the prospect of a difficult election contest this year. Frankly, I think if I had decided to run for another term in the Senate I would be reelected."

Up until today, there was no indication that Dorgan might step down. The non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report rated the veteran Democrat as having a lock on re-election, and USA TODAY's Fredreka Schouten reports that Dorgan had a healthy campaign warchest of $3.9 million as of Sept. 30.

He may have more money than any other possible challenger at this time, but they forgot to mention his abysmal polling numbers.

To make matters worse for Dorgan, the former ND Governor Hoeven is said to be taking a serious look at running against him. In a poll from late December, Dorgan was 22 points behind the popular Republican governor in a heads-up race.

His support for Obamacare and vote for the Senate HCR bill aren't helping, either. Almost two-thirds of North Dakotans don't want the current healthcare bill to pass. While his personal approval numbers are as bad as one might think, compared to Hoeven's, it's very lopsided. He won't admit it, but his bad poll numbers and falling popularity of Obama and the Congressional attempts at healthcare reform was probably a huge factor in his decision not to run.

Most Transparent Congress Evah Strikes Again: Liberal Democrats Hold Secret Meetings to Negotiate HCR Compromise

Pelosi made the promise, after the Democrats won a heavy majority in the House, that this would be "the most transparent" Congress of all time. Since then, Congress has been everything but transparent or post-partisan. In fact, things seem to have become worse.

Now, Pelosi and other liberal Democrats aren't just keeping the Republicans in the dark. They are keeping the more fiscally and socially conservative members of their own party from the negotiating table:

Despite their claims to the contrary, the way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have handled the healthcare bill has been anything but transparent. And, if the left-wing blogosphere is to be believed, the two congressional leaders intend to keep the deliberations secret as they try to merge the House and Senate versions of the legislation into something that will pass both chambers.

The Talking Points Memo website reported Monday that Democrats in both the House and Senate are saying the process will likely follow the path of the House taking up the Senate-passed legislation, amending it and sending it back to the Senate, which will have to pass it again. "This process cuts out the Republicans," a House Democratic aide told TPM, indicating the congressional majority intended to make sure the Republican minority would "not have a motion to recommit opportunity."

It also, say those who are following the issue, allows Pelosi to avoid having to cut deals with problematic House Democrats like Michigan's Bart Stupak, who has promised to do what he can to scuttle the final bill if it provides for federal funding of abortions.

Henry Waxman, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is saying much the same thing, according to David Dayen at FireDogLake, another prominent left-wing website.

Dayen reported that the powerful California Democrat told constituents he would be coming back to Washington Tuesday to begin negotiations with Senate leaders and the White House about what a final healthcare bill will look like—even though the House doesn't come back into session until January 12.

According to Waxman, the process for moving will not include the standard House/Senate conference committee, because the motions to select and instruct conferees in the Senate "would need 60 votes all over again." Instead, whatever agreements made could be packaged in an amendment to the bills passed by the House and Senate.

By blocking out the Republicans—not to mention House Democrats who object to what the Senate passed—Pelosi and Reid are setting up a protracted game of "ping-pong," in which the legislation goes back and forth from the Senate to the House and back to the Senate again. They may be able to prevail as far as the legislation goes, ultimately, but at enormous cost to their majorities. And that may be the biggest secret of all as far as the healthcare debate is concerned, or at least the one Pelosi and Reid are most concerned about.

Now, I don't really have any problem with this game of "ping-pong" that Pelosi and Reid are playing. It'll, hopefully, keep this monstrous bill from becoming law. Then, we can start over and create a bill that'll really make health care more affordable and available without having a negative effect on the quality of that care or "bankrupting" the country.

Harry Reid Isn't Quite Helping Hold Up Obama's Promise to Cut Earmarks

During the campaign and after , Obama promised to cut down on the number of earmarks coming out of Washington. However, his fellow Democrats aren't cooperating with the President on this. In fact, Harry Reid has increased his pork requests:

President Obama may have asked Congress to reduce the number of earmarks in its spending bills, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, isn't cutting back on his pork.

The Senate's most powerful Democrat secured 36 earmarks worth more than $89 million in the fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill, according to information provided by his office---a slight increase over the number of earmarks Mr. Reid secured in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Appropriations bill. That year, he secured 33 earmarks worth more than $83 million.

Despite pledges from Mr. Obama that his Congress would reduce the number of earmarks slipped into spending bills, Mr. Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley said in an email to the Washington Times the Majority Leader was “proud” of his earmarks.

“We’re proud of each and everyone because this money means jobs for a state that has suffered from this economy like no other,” Mr. Manley said.

He's "proud" of his sizable contribution to the federal government's massive deficit spending. No wonder Reid is having some serious troubles getting support for re-election in Nevada.

Despite Over 10% Unemployment Democratic Rep, SEIU Seek Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

The Democratic party and Big Labor have, yet again, come together to throw away the rule in this country. With the passing of Ted Kennedy, Luis Gutierrez has stepped up to become a leader in the effort to make America's immigration laws obsolete:

Democrats on Tuesday begin their new push for an immigration bill, hamstrung by the image of legalizing millions of illegal immigrant workers at a time when the unemployment rate stands at 10 percent -- more than twice what it was the last time Congress tried to act.

"It certainly will confuse the debate a lot more, but at the end of the day what we have to understand is fixing this system will be good for American workers," said Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, which is one of the major advocates for legalizing illegal immigrant workers.

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, the Illinois Democrat who has taken over leadership on the issue after the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, plans to introduce an immigration legalization bill Tuesday, and backers are planning a strategy to avoid repeats of the failed attempts of 2006 and 2007.

To deflect from the conflict between amnesty and the issue of high unemployment, proponents of legalizing the illegal aliens have pushed the idea of legalization is needed in order for them to "pay their fair share" of taxes:

"In these difficult economic times, we must ensure that everyone contributes toward the recovery and prosperity of our nation," they wrote. "To this end, it is imperative that all individuals and employers pay their fair share in taxes."

This is a ludicrous statement. Illegal aliens do pay taxes income, sales, etc. The problem with amnesty lies the fact we are a nation of laws, and we need to enforce said laws, in order to for us to survive.

Shocker: Obama Administration's HHS Report: Senate HCR Bill Would Accelerate Rising Costs, Reduce Medicare

There is more bad news about the Senate's health care reform bill. This time it's coming out of Obama's own Department of Health and Human Services:

Dealing an unexpected blow to Senate Democrat's health care bill, administration economists on Friday predicted the overhaul would accelerate rising costs of health insurance and medical services, and that its proposed Medicare cuts could reduce care for senior citizens.

A report by analysts at the Health and Human Services Department said the bill would increase the nation's annual spending on health care beyond the current $2.5 trillion at a slightly faster rate than if Congress did nothing. It concluded that new taxes on drugs, medical devices and health insurance plans would trigger higher insurance premiums for consumers.

Don't worry. It gets worse:

The report also said the Democrats' plan to pay for about half of the $1 trillion bill with Medicare cuts "may be unrealistic" and could undermine the Medicare program, warning the bill could force out of business one in five hospitals, nursing homes and home care providers.

Great! In a time of over 10% unemployment and a fragile economy, the Democrats want to pass a bill that will kill one-fifth of one-sixth (3%) of the overall US economy.

The report was prepared by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which specializes in long-range cost evaluations for Medicare. It analyzed the total public and private cost of the health care bill over the next 10 years, in contrast to earlier studies by the Congressional Budget Office that said the measure would minimally lower the record-setting federal deficit over the decade.

The effects plan will have catastrophic consequences for our Medicare system and the quality of care for our senior citizens:

Perhaps the most startling revelation in the report, however, was an assessment that cuts to the Medicare program could undermine it.

"Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable," the report said. "Absent legislative intervention, [physicians] might end their participation in the program, possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries."

Of course, Republicans jumped all over this report:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the bill got a "failing grade." He said the report, coupled with a CNN poll on Friday that showed 61 percent of Americans oppose the health care bill, was a seminal moment in the debate.

"How much more do we need to hear before we stop this bill and start over?" Mr. McConnell said.

While the report claims that the bill will marginally reduce the deficit and insure many more Americans, it, also, concedes that it will cripple Medicare and kill one-fifth of one-sixth (3%) of the entire US economy by forcing many hospitals, clinics, etc to close. The closures will throw many doctors, nurses, pharmacists into the unemployment line and cause longer wait times as a result of a lack of qualified medical centers and professionals.

This doesn't seem like progress. We would just be exchanging one crisis with another. Then again, it is Rahmbo's motto to never waste a good crisis. Maybe, it is what they want.

Hmmm Change: PPP: Who Do Want to Be President: Obama 50%, Bush 44%

Considering that Bush's final approval rating was a beyond dismal 22%, this is an amazing turnaround:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

Hat/tip: Allahpundit of Hot Air

Biden: Dodd Needs Help He's Getting "Living Bejesus Beat Out of Him"

In another moment of candor with the Vice President, he said opined about Senator Dodd's trouble in his 2010 re-election bid:

ABC News' Karen Travers and David Chalian report:

The always-loquacious Vice President Biden today gave an assessment of his good friend Chris Dodd's Senate race in Connecticut – and he didn't mince words.

"Chris is getting the living hell beat out of him, the living bejesus beat out of him," Biden said at a fundraiser Hartford, Conn.  "Why? Because he's being a leader."

"This is going to be a hell of a race and it's an uphill race,'' Biden said, "but Chris Dodd will prevail.''

Apparently, Biden has forgotten about his healthcare reform scandals, Senate ethics investigation, or his gift to AIG.

Biden doubled down on his praise for the endangered senator:

Biden was effusive in his praise today for Dodd, calling him "the single most gifted legislator in Congress, now that Teddy Kennedy's gone."

Dodd wasn't there to hear the compliments or the stark assessment of his re-election campaign. The Connecticut senator stayed in Washington to handle Senate business. His wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, attended in his place.

Biden credited Dodd with having "the guts" to stand up to the banking industry and for his work as a leader on health care reform in the Senate.

"Chris Dodd is the first United States senator that has simultaneously chaired two major committees in a moment of genuine national crisis,'' Biden said. And had he got either of those jobs wrong, the consequences for America would be dire. That is not hyperbole, that is a fact."

Dodd is, more than likely, on his way out. No amount of praise from Biden will change that fact. It's not just hyperbole on my part.

So Much For A Free Press: UN Security Told to Silence Film Maker From Asking "Inconvenient Questions"

The global warming advocates are getting very testy, when it comes to getting questioned about the Climategate fiasco:

Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.

He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.

After giving the reporter "no comment" as his only response to the scandal, Schneider proceeded to throw a fit and get Mr. McAleer thrown out:

During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.

However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room. McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.

“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”

“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted  but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”

Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference.

McAleer says he has made an official complaint tabout the incident.

“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”

“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”

Apparently, this isn't the first time that the global warming gurus have tried to silence him. The Goracle did the same

His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube.

McCain: What's In Senate HCR Bill?||Durbin (D): Your Guess Is As Good As Mine

According to Dick Durbin, the he's "in the dark" about what the Senate compromise entails just as much as the rest of America:

The 10 Democratic senators who crafted a healthcare compromise are keeping its details a secret, says Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Friday.

Responding to a complaint by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that Republicans haven't been told what's in the new bill, Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, responded that he's in the same position.

I would say to the senator from Arizona that I'm in the dark almost as much as he is. And I'm in the leadership, Durbin said on the Senate floor.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has submitted the bill to the CBO from scoring, but Durbin said no one involved in the compromise will spill the beans until the score is released.

It makes me wonder what Reid is so afraid of that he won't release it. It couldn't have anything to with his own tanking numbers in Nevada. Could it?

More Bad News For Reid: Trails All Challengers As Obamacare Weighs Him Down

Things are looking bad for Harry's chances to win re-election in November:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continues to lag behind all potential Republican challengers in next year's U.S. Senate race in Nevada, according to new Rasmussen Reports telephone polling in the state.

For now at least, his championing of the president's health care plan appears to raise further red flags for the Democratic incumbent. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Nevada voters oppose the plan, while 44% favor it.

More significantly, however, those numbers include 49% who strongly oppose the plan while only 23% strongly favor it.

This represents stronger and more passionate opposition to the health care plan than Rasmussen Reports has found nationally.

While Nevadans are extremely displeased with the healthcare plan that Reid helped introduce in the Senate, it is not the only reason why Reid looks to be on his way out:

The numbers in this month's survey suggest that the race at this point is a referendum on Reid, who earns 43% of the vote against each of three GOP candidates. Incumbents who get less than 50% of the vote at this stage of the game are viewed as vulnerable. Reid, who is seeking a fifth term, received 61% of the final vote in 2004.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of Nevada voters have a very unfavorable opinion of Reid. Just 21% offer a very favorable opinion of the senator.

The Republicans remain largely unknown, further confirming the notion that the numbers reflect a referendum on the incumbent rather than a choice between competing candidates.

Obama's Fuzzy Math: He's 1.2 Million Short of the 1.6 Million Jobs He Were Claimed Created by Stimulus

The Obama Administration isn't only liberal with their policies, but they are liberal with their counting, as well:

A private-sector company that tracks government contracts says President Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill has created 407,000 private-sector jobs this year, much less than the 1.6 million jobs the Obama administration has claimed.

At the same time, the company's analysts are finding that many businesses are changing their strategies to take advantage of the government funds being dispersed.

Analysts at Onvia, a Seattle-based company, who monitor the government's contracting activity using specialized software say $37.5 billion of stimulus money has flowed to the private sector to date.

"This is quite different than the government's numbers, which claim as many as 1.6 million jobs already created," Onvia said. "The difference is due to the fact that the feds can track only two layers of stimulus money flow, far short of the full paper trail required. Therefore, a lot of guesswork and extrapolations go into the government's math, and the jobs numbers are forecasts more than anything else."

Onvia Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer Eric Gillespie explained to The Washington Times, "What the federal government is recording is largely dollars that have left the Beltway. They aren't tracking the projects and contracts on the ground."

"They don't know if those dollars landed on the ground because their reporting requirements say they only have to track two layers beyond the federal level," he said. "So if it goes from the state to a county, they will know that. But if it goes from a county to a city or from a county to a contractor there is no legal requirement for them to track that, which is why the federal views are latent and they get it three, six, or 12 months late."

So, Obama is basically guessing on how many jobs have been actually created by his deficit spendapalooza. He doesn't have any proof to back his claims.

This is why we need an investigation on what is really going on with the dispersion of the stimulus money. We can't totally trust this Administration's guestimations and suspect record keeping. We must know for sure whether Obama and the Democrats kept their promises to put America back to work or wasting all of our money of worthless government programs, yet again.

Joe Wilson (R-SC) Plans to Call For Investigation of Where Stimulus Funds Went

Rep. Wilson has had another "you lie" moment. This time he calls them out for misleading the public on the amount of stimulus successes there really are:

The South Carolina Republican who has gained a reputation for his outspokenness is calling for an official government audit of President Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill.

"After several days of reports of stimulus inconsistencies, the administration still hasn't explained where the money is really being spent," Rep. Joe Wilson said in a statement. "Their silence on this important issue is deafening."

He is referring to reports that money is being sent to districts that don't exist and organizations like AARP receiving payoffs for their support.

He delivered this ultimatum to the White House and the Democrats, in response:

He said if a panel is not appointed by Dec. 1, he will call for an independent examination of the "reporting inaccuracies of every stimulus dollar appropriated."

The main problem is the Obama administration promised that the government Web site, www.recovery.gov, would show exactly where the money was going to "create or save" jobs, but the site is using unreliable data.

I agree that we need to go through their stimulus spending with a fine-toothed comb. In fact, I believe that is what Obama promised to do in the campaign. Isn't it? Alas, this seems to be, yet another, campaign promise broken.

Rev. Jackson: You're Not Black If You Vote Against Healthcare Reform

At the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation, the outspoken preacher, Jesse Jackson, caused a stir by what he said in his speech as part of a series of events revolving around the 25th anniversary of Jackson’s run for president:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill.

“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

The Democratic representative from Alabama who is, also, running for governor had this to say in response:

Davis referred to Jackson’s 1988 run for president in a statement, issued through his office, that said he would not engage Jackson on his criticism.

“One of the reasons that I like and admire Rev. Jesse Jackson is that 21 years ago he inspired the idea that a black politician would not be judged simply as a black leader,” Davis’s statement said. “The best way to honor Rev. Jackson’s legacy is to decline to engage in an argument with him that begins and ends with race.”

Jackson said later that he didn't call anybody by name and I won't.

No, he didn't name Davis by name, but he was the only one there to vote against it. So, who else could he have been talking about?

He added that he wasn't saying that black lawmakers must vote a certain way.

Of course not, they can vote any way they want. He just won't consider them black anymore, if they don't vote the way that he feels that they should vote.

Other members of the CBC found no fault in Jackson's words. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) was in the audience. He called Jackson's criticism of Davis accurate, but said he did not hear Jackson say You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard, in a while. Hear no evil; see no evil. I guess.

Look Who's Getting Porkulus Money: AARP Sells Out Seniors For $18 Million

After hesitating to endorse Obamacare because of the majority of its constituents are against it, seniors have been fleeing the left-leaning organization in droves. Now, we have found out why they would throw grandma and grandpa under the bus for Obamacare:

AARP, which has given its full-throated support to Democratic health care legislation even though seniors remain largely opposed, received an $18 million grant in the economic stimulus package for a job training program that has not created any jobs, according to the Obama administration's Recovery.gov website.

The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), according to the website, is "a work training program for unemployed mature workers who are 55+ and are at or below 125% of the poverty guidelines." So far, $6.5 million has been spent on the program, and it has not reported creating any jobs.

Not only did they benefit from the passage of the Porkulus bill, they, also, seem to benefit Obamacare, as well:

As it turns out, AARP is also in a position to benefit financially if the health care legislation passes, because seniors losing benefits as a result of cuts to Medicare Advantage will be forced to buy Medigap policies, which is the main source of AARP revenue.

The chief executive of the AARP, Byron Rand, definitely as an ulterior motive behind his organization's endorsement of a plan that raises costs and lowers the quality of care for seniors, the people that he is supposed to represent and do what is in their best interest.

White House Goes Into Shoot the Messenger Mode: Chastises Fox for Mammogram Rationing Controversy

There was a big controversy yesterday about a report that came out, at the behest of the Department of Health & Human Services, that discouraged women from getting mammograms, a potentially life-saving procedure, after the same organization released a report 6 months before decrying the importance of women over 40 getting mammograms.

Critics claimed that this was the start of healthcare rationing that many were worried about as a government-run system tries to save money.

In vintage Obama style, White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer attacked Fox News, yet again:

White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer blasted critics of the guidelines in a blog posted to the administration's Web site late Tuesday, taking particular aim at an article posted on FoxNews.com.

"One of the hallmark tactics from opponents of health insurance reform has been to grab onto any convenient piece of information and twist it into some misguided attack on reform -- no matter how unrelated it may actually be," wrote Pfeiffer. "Today they're going back to that playbook again, and Fox News obliges them."

The White House lamely tried to spin the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the people that released the recommendation, had no direct power over whether or not Obamacare will cover mammograms for women 40-50.

While this is true, who doesn't think that government bureaucrats will use this as an excuse to cut financial corners. With the national debt and deficit at record numbers, there will be tremendous pressure on those that do have the power to keep costs down.

Republican women, led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, have begun to take a stand on this important women's health issue:

"This is the way rationing, which my colleagues and I have warned about, will begin to enter the market place -- slowly, imperceptibly and lethally," Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.

Blackburn, of Tennessee, joined other Republican women in Congress on Wednesday to speak out in opposition to guidelines that recommend changing when and how women should be tested for the No. 2 cancer killer in women.

This is just another example of how government-run healthcare is not really any better than the insurance companies, when it comes to the quality of healthcare. The only real difference is the government will be telling you that a potentially life-saving procedure is an "elective" procedure or "too experimental" and refuse to pay for it.