COUNTDOWN TO 2010: Political power swings to Democrats

SANDUSKY Enter the donkeys. Exit the elephants. A decade of political upheaval that b
Tom Jackson
May 24, 2010



Enter the donkeys. Exit the elephants.

A decade of political upheaval that began in controversy ended with a major partisan shift as Republicans -- once in charge of the nation, the state and Erie County -- wound up handing power over to Democrats.

1. The decade began with the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore.

Gore, despite being part of a Democratic administration that presided over years of prosperity and relative peace, lost anyway.

The victory left Republicans in control of the White House, both the House and the Senate in Congress, and the Supreme Court.

GOP ascendancy in the High Court was underscored when the justices voted 5-4 for a decision that essentially halted the Florida election recount, handing the election to Bush.

2. Bush won a second term in 2004.

Bush's win was aided when a key state, Ohio, entered the victory column.

Although the election result in Ohio was not as disputed as the 2000 election in Florida, the outcome generated criticism and conspiracy theories.

The long lines of people waiting to vote helped generate a change in Ohio's elections, with absentee balloting opened up to all Ohio voters during the second half of the decade.

3.) The political winds shifted in 2006, when Democrats took control of the U.S. House (installing Nancy Pelosi as speaker, the first woman to serve in the post) and gained control of the Senate, which after the election had 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents.

Democrats defeated six incumbent Republican senators in 2006, and nowhere was the shift of fortunes more dramatic than in the swing state of Ohio, where Sherrod Brown gave up a safe U.S. House seat representing Lorain to run for the Senate. Brown won, defeating incumbent Republican Mike DeWine, who held office in various government posts for 30 years.

4.) The national shift was confirmed in the 2008 election, which not only saw the election of Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain in the race for president, but which gave the new president a Congress he could work with. Democrats cemented solid majorities in the House and Senate.

The national trend also played out on a much smaller stage in Erie County.

1.) In 2000, the county commissioners were Republican Harold Butcher, Republican Nancy McKeen and Democrat Tom Ferrell Jr.

"That was very unusual here. It is such a Democratic county," said clerk of the commissioners Carolyn Hauenstein.

2.) Republican fortunes were aided when they persuaded McKeen to run. McKeen never lost an election, defeating Democrats Natalie Mosher in 1996, Deborah Alex-Saunders in 2000 and Bill Kimberlin in 2004.

3.) Ferrell, meanwhile, proved equally efficient over the years in holding his seat for the Democrats. He won in 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000 (defeating Leroy Silvani), 2004 (beating Joe Hayberger) and 2008 (Michael Printy was the Republican nominee).

4.) Butcher chose not to seek re-election in 2002 after a scandal stemming from a drunk driving arrest. Republican Sparky Weilnau of Milan held the seat for the GOP, defeating Brent Gardner in the primary and Leroy Sizemore Jr. in the general election.

5.) But in 2006, as Brown defeated a Republican incumbent in the Senate, Democratic businessman Bill Monaghan mounted a campaign against Weilnau. Monaghan won, giving Democrats a 2-1 edge on the county commission, with McKeen serving as the lone Republican.

6.) In 2008, as Ferrell won his match-up with Printy, Democrat Pat Shenigo edged Republican Hayberger in a narrow race, giving Democrats 3-0 control of the county commission.

The political changes in Columbus also proved dramatic.

1.) In 2000, Ohio had a Republican governor, Bob Taft, and held many state offices, including both U.S. Senate seats and control of the Ohio General Assembly.

2.) Democrat Ted Strickland won the 2006 election for governor, defeating Republican Ken Blackwell. And in 2008, Democrats captured control of the Ohio House, although Republicans retain a majority in the Ohio Senate.



I found on AOL

The Real
DEATH PANEL. these people want to Deny 50 million people to LIFE?
(R) Michael Stephen Steele (R) Orin Hatch, Charles Schumer, (R) John Boehner, (R) Ben Nelson, (R) Jerrold Nadler, (R) Jon Kyl, (R) Michael Bennet, (R) Kent Conrad / (R) Charles Grassley (D) BLANCH LINCOLN, (D) Kit Bond, SARAH PALIN, (?) Joe Lieberman, (R) George Voinovich? (R) Mitch McConnell? (R) John McCain?
And STOP millions of JOBS this Public Option will produce?
All the time sending 10 BILLION dollars to Israel, that has Nationalized Medical Insurance? Well these people Surpass HILTERS NuMBERS?


Just for purposes of clarification, Jerrold Nadler is a Democrat. Perhaps he switched last night since AOL is never wrong. For purposes of editorializing, Erie County has certainly thrived under its political leadership over the years, hasn't it?


Well, the good thing about 2010 is that we most likely see the Democrats lose power just as fast as they've gained it. With this we will likely see a repeal of all the ridiculous legislation they have pushed through in the last year. Ever wonder why the Dems have rammed so much legislation through before 2010? They know full well that they won't be in control of congress in 2010. If the polls are correct the Dems will lose control of the house and senate in 2010. Well over half of Americans did not want the health care bill in its current form to be enacted. What happened? The Dems pushed it through. Well over 80% of Americans do not want cap and trade legislation because they know that it will kill jobs in the US. What are the Dems doing? They are trying to ram it through before the 2010 elections. Americans will remember. I predict that the Dems are thrown out in a landslide.


And how well this decade is starting out under the tyranny of the Socialist....uh...I mean the Democrat party!!!

Zeich Heil der Furher Obama

Merry Christmas



The real death Panel is you

Jobs that this bill would create? The government doesn't create jobs it creates the destruction of wealth. Without wealth we have worse healthcare. This bill by now....will kill hundreds upon thousands of your country the means not least of which will be stealing the food from the poors mouth.

Merry Christmas
Goodwill towards men
and heres hoping the ignorant and misguided learn from their mistakes

digger nick

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln


.................and Mr. Obama, you ain't no Abe Lincoln

brutus smith

So if the Dems lose in 2010 does that mean we can pick up where Bush left off and totally destroy the middle class? Does that mean that those who have jobs will make $5.00 an hour while the top 10% make millions? Where healthcare will only be available to the rich? Boy I can hardly wait. Seems like only yesterday.


I occupy the middle class, have health care, and wonder who you know that makes $5.00 an hour? That tired schtick got the Dems ousted in the nineties, although it seems like only yesterday, so generate some talking points more recent than the Carter administration. While you're at it, try contemplating the fact that blind allegiance to partisan politics is what has gotten us in this mess. Neither party will get it done unless and until we violate their comfort zone. Put the pressure on ALL of them, that's the only change we can truly count on. BTW, since you believe in benevolence, how much do you pay your baby sitter? I hope it's well above minimum, but I doubt it.

Man of the Republic

yeah, and this new decade will start with health care probably biting the dust somewhere...and congress becoming more centralized.


ref: man4451

I admit, you did your best in a effort to divert the arrows from your Commrade Obama, Reid and Pisoly. But it didn't work, we ALL know that he's a socialist pig, and this rag paper is close to his heart/views.

the REAL PROBLEM is now all these liberal Democrats are switching over to Rebublican without changing their political views.
WE DON"T WANT THEM!! They made their choice to MURDER MILLIONS Of babies, to support murdering 'worthless bread gobbling grandmas' as once acidently stated.

ANy democrats that switch over and run under the Republican title I will NOT vote for, they are no different than Nazi's trying to hide while they are being hunt down to be accountable for their sins

brutus smith

Ahhhh boys, the Republicans have abortions too, they just have private Doctors that do it, they don't go to the clinics.

brutus smith

So Wetsu are you saying our wages went up the last 8 years? That tired talk of the 90's? You think we are better off today? Oh boy.


et tu, Brute?

My wages did and I am better off today because there was a measure of planning and continuing education that apparently you opted not to engage in. As far as tired talk of the 90's, I tire of the same partisan rhetoric that has gone on ad nauseum for decades. The policies have clearly failed, quit trying to defend them and that applies to both (D) and (R). So, more to the point, what do you pay your sitter?

I am certainly not omniscient, but I can learn from the past. This is what I fear:

It has nothing to do with party for me. It has to do with failure.

brutus smith

wetsu, I guess if you think going from window order taking $7.00 an hour to burger flipping at $7.25 an hour is an improvement, then I'm happy for you.



I neuter you intellectually and you come up with that? Typical. I refute your every point and the best you can do is engage in nonsense speculation? You are far too easy and should count yourself lucky that I chose not to emasculate you factually prior to this thread. And quit avoiding questions. Did you read the article or did the fact that the writer is from San Francisco pull the rug out from under your baseless belief system?

This forum is for all, but at least have the decency to arm yourself with something of substance to offer. Pathetic.

brutus smith

Please wetsu, I am so waiting for facts to back up what you say instead of the useless diatribe you have put out.

brutus smith

Oh and why would I read anything from Rupert Murdock's Right Wing Journal, I mean WSJ.

So once again instead of telling us how smart you are prove what you say with facts.


It is only useless to the extent that you cannot respond to it rationally or factually. Typical. You cannot reason so you resort to disarmed bomb attempts.

Did you read the article? If so, what in it is not factual? If not, why not? Do you not have concern for the possible long-term ramifications of political fiat? Again, I have no dog in this fight politically. I washed my hands of both parties as viable leaders quite some time ago. I merely want people to take a hard look at those in positions of power.

Areas of agreement/disagreement?

I am all for point/counterpoint and meaningful exchange. If you are honest you will engage in it as opposed to regurgitated swill. I will give you credit for loyalty.

brutus smith

Well c'mon, like I've asked people on other posts throw out some names who you support. And like I've said it can't be any current Republican Senators since they all voted in lockstep with Bush. Put same names behind all the rhetoric.


While I don't necessarily feel that voting with a president disqualifies a senator, I feel your pain. I use John Boehner as an example. When he first arrived on the scene I actually held out hope that he could make a difference; he was intelligent, sincere, fresh and passionate. Now look at what we've got. Almost as quickly as he rose into the higher ranks in the GOP he simply toed the party line. He is but another out of touch politico. My major beef in general is how often each party dismisses the initiatives of the other. How often has the public good been compromised simply because our elected officials have sacrificed good legislation for the sake of not wanting the other party to get a lick of credit?

For the life of me I know that there are good politicians but I wonder why people even bother? I confess to falling short. I don't bother to track possible candidates any more. I try to stay informed enough to have a rationale for voting on local/state issues, but when in November '08 I couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger for either ticket, opting instead to write a couple of guys in. Bush was too much a puppet of Cheney and I am still of the opinion that Obama is a figurehead for Axelrod and Emanuel. All of them are all to willing to gamble with our chips.



Make the last sentence "All of them are all TOO willing to gamble with our chips."

I apologize for the typo.


Thank you, Digger Nick, for the Lincoln quote. Where are all of America's brilliant leaders nowadays? This was very well put and very much the truth. Unfortunately, America's leaders seem h*ll-bent on "redistributing the wealth", making everybody in this country (except themselves, I'm sure) is equally poor!

I know quite a few people who feel that because they are lazy and uneducated with no desire to lead or own their own business, that people who HAVE MORE than them should GIVE them some of THEIR MONEY! Wealth is not an entitlement for the lazy! Why on earth would anybody WORK, if they are only working to support the lazy slobs who DO NOT WANT to WORK?

Our leaders will soon be APPOINTING JOBS to citizens and at wages they dictate!


So I think we can all now agree that Socialism doesn't work

and I think we can all agree Obama is our first Socialist President elect under false pretenses.

I think we can all agree that if Cheney was Bush's puppetmaster George Soros is Obama Puppet master.

I think we can all agree the world would be a much better place without Obama's teleprompter that has a direct feed from Soros and Rham Emmanuel.

I think we can agree the taste of pure unadulterated socialism is leaving a bad taste in the mouth of most Americans.

I think we can all agree Obama, Pelozi, and Reid will go down in history as traitors to freedom and prosperity.

I know we can all agree that I like using Socialist phraseology in this post.

I know we can all agree when the pendulum swings back it will do so in a very hard and swift manner....hopefully the Der Brutus is not standing in the way.


Jonp you typify America.."I" .......should be " We hold these truths to be self evident........" Or Voltaire - "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich, as well as the poor to steal bread, beg, & sleep under bridges." When $$ help the wealthy it is called capitalism. When $$ help the average & poor it is called socialism.

brutus smith

Jon, I failed to see where you wrote Corporate Capitalism doesn't work. Just an oversight on your part? You sure got in all the right wing talking points.


We may well get the opportunity to see if wide-scale Socialism works in the United States. I think we lose sight of how excessive government tinkering sets the stage for economic failure. While I use Barney Frank as the odious figurehead in the recent and prolonged recession he was hardly alone both in terms of government and private sector cronies. Greed and vain pride went a long way toward this destination and I am dubious that massive government initiatives will stem the tide of greed and vain pride.

brutus smith

We are not even close to the kind of socialism you are referring to wetzu.


You may well be correct, brutus. I'm not sure how much Socialism you believe I'm referring to, but I will respectfully defer to you with regard to how much might be too much. I tried to parse the wording of that prior post since I am not versed enough in Socialism to make specific claims.


Wetsu, do not even waste your time with Brutus. All he spews is outdated liberal talking points. He believes everyone deserves to make $40/hr. It doesn't matter whether it is an unskilled, entry level job such as flipping burgers. Brutus and his ilk believe that they are owed a good paying job and that they shouldn't have to obtain the education and/or the experience required to make them more valuable to their employer. Their belief is that we should force business owners, "the rich," to pay even the most unskilled workers enough to put them in the middle class. Apparently Brutus hasn't studied the history of socialism. When you mandate a so-called, arbitrary living wage the only thing you do is force employers to cut costs by hiring fewer workers. Sure you may raise the standard of living for a few but you will in fact create a larger class of poor people.

brutus smith

rbeau69, what a stupid post. What, are you back in High school?

brutus smith

Right-wingers frequently employed paranoid and revolutionary rhetoric and suggested that progressives, including Obama and Democrats in Congress, were betraying America.

* Morris: "Those crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the U.N.'s going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case"
* Limbaugh: "Thank you President Obama. Thank you CNN. You are doing the job that everybody expects of you, taking every tradition and institution that defined this country's greatness and trying to rip it to shreds"
* Limbaugh claims White House is "[p]erfectly timed, perfectly programmed, perfectly educated to destroy capitalism ... and they're in the process of doing it"
* Fox's Charles Payne: "[O]ne day, I think that we are heading toward a one-world sort of government. I think Obama probably likes that"
* Limbaugh attacks state of Maine, says "saw the state off and let it float out to sea"
* Claiming Obama is "letting our troops literally bleed and die" in Afghanistan, Beck suggests he will "pay for it" in afterlife
* Savage: "[L]ikelihood is very high" that "martial law will be declared" after "equivalent of the Reichstag fire" occurs
* Savage: "There are internment camps being planned" and the National Guard is going to "run" them
* Limbaugh: "if we had any good luck, Honduras would send some people here and help us get our government back"
* Beck guest Scheuer: "The only chance we have as a country right now is" for bin Laden to "detonate a major weapon" in U.S.
* Beck: "[I]f we don't have some common sense, we're facing the destruction of our country... it's coming"
* Rodgers: A "few million dead Americans" will "wake up" public "to the fact that they have elected an anti-American President"
* CBS golf analyst Feherty: "[I]f you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it ... there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."
* Morris on Obama's foreign policy: "If you're an enemy of America... he's in bed with you... The way to get popular with this administration is to be an enemy of the United States"
* Beck: "You can't convince me that the founding fathers wouldn't allow you to secede"
* Beck imitates Obama pouring gasoline on "average American"; says: "President Obama, why don't you just set us on fire? ... We didn't vote to lose the Republic"
* Newsmax columnist: Military coup "to resolve the 'Obama problem' " is not "unrealistic"


With the exception of savage's post, the comments are pretty truthful, I have no problem with them. David Feherty's comment is the most humorous I've read.


Steamers, I have more questions you might be able to help me with. After the plane attack in Detroit, why wasn't Obama waken up from a nap for three hours after the fact? Why did it take him three days to adress the nation after the fact? With Al Qaeda claiming credit for the bombings,the accomplice being led off the plane in handcuffs, two Al Qaeda members being credited with the planning(the same two people that were released from Guantanamo), why does Obama keep insisting that it was the work of only one operative? Why has Obama stonewalled any reference to the the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist attack even under a mountain of truth professing it was a terrorist attack? Why when every president before him went to church on christmas,if nothing else than a photo op, did Obama and his family decide not to go to church? After leaving Chicago and Rev. Jeremiah Wright,why hasn't he joined a church in Washington? Could the answer be in this obitLegendary lawyer and politician Percy Sutton has died at the age of 89, and the major media are omitting mention of one of his most notable acts. The former Borough President of Manhattan, Sutton had a long and distinguished career as a lawyer (he was Malcolm X's attorney) and media mogul, who purchased radio stations in New York and other cities, making them into high rated black-oriented outlets. He also purchased and renovated (thereby saving from the wrecking ball) New York's legendary Apollo Theatre in Harlem. To top it off, Sutton was a member of the Tuskegee Airmen, one of the most celebrated groups in military aviation circles. A man of great accomplishment, whatever else one might think about his politics, and a man worthy of great respect.

However, one of Sutton's most notable moments is absent from the media hagiographies I have seen: he stated on television that he knew that an Islamic supremacist, Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and advisor to a wealthy Saudi, had paid for Barack Obama's education at Harvard Law School.

Exactly how young Barack Obama, a man of slender means, managed to pay for a Harvard Law degree has long been a mystery, and the President has not been forthcoming about any details of his elite education.

See for yourself, Sutton's remarkable statement, which has been considgned to the Memory Hole, by the major media. Not even a reference to a "controversial contention" or other such euphemism. It simply never happened as far as the media are concerned. "

brutus smith

At least he didn't go to Nebraska and hide in a hole.


You GO goofus. My questions exactly! These LOSERS are still slamming Bush for ALL their FAILURES. So, a person from AFRICA decides to be a TERRORIST and gets PETN underware from Yemen. He tries to detonate the device and fails. I surmise the detonator has to be a binary mix along with PETN to avoid the metal detectors. It is by pure LUCK the plane did NOT fall out of the sky. Obama uses AF-1 and another jet for his entourage to fly to Hawaii. You crybabies howled about Bush playing golf in TX?? Oh, I forgot, it is that entitlement and privilege culture. So the prez is told about it three hours after it happened and does not make a statement until THREE DAYS later?? How about obama's Janet Napolitano saying on Sunday the nations security system worked? Then on Monday she tells Fox News our security system FAILED. This is the SECOND TERRORIST attack on the United States since your president took office. Now how can this be? TWO attacks since obama has been president in LESS than one year?? So tell me whiners, do YOU feel safer now? Still Bush's fault? Ha! Ha! You liberals love to BLAME everything and everyone for YOUR own FAILURES. Oh, I forgot, it is now the American culture. Waaa, waaa, waaa. Ha! Ha!

brutus smith

Since the plane took off from Amsterdam, it was their security that didn't pick it up. Should we build a mid-air station where we can board the plane once it is in our airspace? Oh that's right Conservatives would be against that too. To much money and violates 1st Amendment. After the fact Conservatives strike again.


brutus is correct in the assertion that the plane took off outside of the USA, one can hardly bust the chops of Obama for lax security in Amsterdam. I would be interested in knowing how those who exulted in criticizing GWB's pause in front of a class of children on 9/11 react to the three day lag by the present occupant of the presidency?

6079 Smith W

Did ya ever notice how the lefties decried Bush as a Hitler, yet the Obama administration and his thugs use the same or worse tactics?

'TSA Threatens Blogger Who Posted New Screening Directive':

brutus smith

ahhhh wetzu, the country was under attack that day.

brutus smith

And a follow up, nobody at the time criticized Bush for waiting 6 days to say anything about the shoe bomber.


How many wrongs make a right in your mind, brutus?

Chung Lee

Shouldn't the people who are so angry about a 3 day delay explain why a 6 day delay was acceptable? It is called consistency. Just curious..... how many people experienced harm as a result of this "delay"?

Speaking of delays, it would be nice if TSA could get a leader approved but unfortunately Demint is playing political games and is opposing confirmation because the appointee might allow workers to unionize? Shameful to say the least.


Hey Chung Lee, your TRUE cultural and liberalism is still showing. What happened to all that racist accent you are so good at? It suddenly disappeared? You fit PERFECTLY in the liberal racist agenda. Imagine that. I am glad DeMint is holding up the selection of the TSA or ANY future obama appointments. Why? ALL applicants from now on need to be vetted and screened. You know, like the self-proclaimed communist and socialist Van Jones being magically appointed as the "green czar" and then FORCED to resign. How about Infotech czar and convicted shoplifter Vivek Kundra who resigned when the FBI raided his government office? How about Safe School czar Kevin Jennings who is dedicated to promoting homosexual clubs and curricula in PUBLIC schools? How is that car czar Ron Bloom working out for you? How about obama's media controller Anita Dunn who is a known Maoist and forced to resigned? Forget about that??? It appears your president is striking OUT in selecting fellow socialists, communists, Maoists, criminals, Marxist, racists and anti-capitalist (ACORN) people to LEAD this country. I can see WHY Jim DeMint wants oversight to INVESTIGATE anyone nominated or selected by this president. His dismal performance is on record on chosing all his buddies instead of what is best for the nation. How about obama endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders in VT who is a committed socialist. Now HOW can that BE??? Ha! Ha! How about the total FAILURE of a HOAX vaccination program with Kathleen Sebelius? Or Janet Napolitano placing returning veterans and gun owners on the "watch list." You know the EXACT same "watch list" that FAILED to see a TERRORIST bomber on a plane to Detroit? How about Eric Holder bringing the TERRORIST 9/11 trial to NYC so they can look out the window and marvel at their work?? Forget about that?? Your president has PROVEN he is totally inept in chosing responsible people to lead this government. That is why your president might eclipse Jimmy Carter from the "Worse Single Term President" in the history of the United States. Not a bad honor right??? Ha! Ha!


All the liberal fuss about the TSA having no director is rather humorous. I thought the TSA was in charge of inspecting all domestic flights. Director or no director is going to stop an international flight into this country loaded with a bomb. Bush had already dealt with worst disaster in terrorism. He had agencies in place trying to insure it would never happen again. The shoe bomber was just another midterm correction that had to be addressed. Obama is too busy pushing his agenda down the throats of a public that is totally against it. He can't be worried about petty things like terrorism.

brutus smith

I wasn't saying Bush was wrong about the shoe bomber. He was though on 9/11.

Chung Lee

As far as Chung Lee know it is not a crime to be a communist or a socialist in the US. You might want to look at your pocket copy of the Constitution for a little guidance on that one. Interesting that a "Teabagger" like yourself would think that is the case. You realize that the tea party was an act of terrorism? Pretty sick that a group of people would want to embrace this crime as their identity.

Apparently, the "facts are not your strong point either. Vivek Kundra is still the Chief Information Officer. He may have even been involved in "finding" the 34 million lost emails from the Bush Administration. As far as his shoplifting conviction from 1996 when he was 22 years old, yes that was wrong but why wasn't the DUI convictions for George Bush, Cheney, or Gonzalez an issue? Speaking of shoplifting, how did things work out for Claude Allen that Policy Czar guy appointed by Bush? Other notable Republicans in jail or recently convicted (while in office) include Scooter Libbey and David Safavian. Fortunately, the vetting did keep Bernard Kerik from his appointment and he is currently in jail.

Seems a lot is being made about the underwear bomber being put on trial in a federal court but could you tell Chung Lee where Richard Reid went on trail? Complete ignorance of "taxpayer" to suggest all returning servicemen are put on some sort of list. Chung Lee sure that those who make terroristic comments may be on list. Should people be exempt just because of their service? Maybe this type of list could have prevented a Timothy McVeigh from committing his terrorist act. By the way, a list was made of threats from the right and the left...... a fact that people who refuse to engage in honest debate fail to mention.

Regardless when people think of corruption they will always be reminded of Bush, Ronald "I don't remember" Reagan and Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon. Now those are some names that never appear with honor and integrity!

brutus smith

Taxpayer, I have looked at a lot of rankings for past Presidents and I can't find one that says Carter was the worst. Please enlighten me.


Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:01 A.M. EDT

We predicted Democrats would use the 9/11 Commission for partisan purposes, and that much of the press would oblige. But color us astonished that barely anyone appreciates the significance of the bombshell Attorney General John Ashcroft dropped on the hearings Tuesday. If Jamie Gorelick were a Republican, you can be sure our colleagues in the Fourth Estate would be leading the chorus of complaint that the Commission's objectivity has been fatally compromised by a member who was also one of the key personalities behind the failed antiterror policy that the Commission has under scrutiny. Where's the outrage?

At issue is the pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators--a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant "the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail." The Attorney General explained:

"In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

"When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

"At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this--someday someone will die--and wall or not--the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' "

What's more, Mr. Ashcroft noted, the wall did not mysteriously arise: "Someone built this wall." That someone was largely the Democrats, who enshrined Vietnam-era paranoia about alleged FBI domestic spying abuses by enacting the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Mr. Ashcroft pointed out that the wall was raised even higher in the mid-1990s, in the midst of what was then one of the most important antiterror investigations in American history--into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. On Tuesday the Attorney General declassified and read from a March 4, 1995, memo in which Jamie Gorelick--then Deputy Attorney General and now 9/11 Commissioner--instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of "appearances" they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required.

Ms. White was then the lead prosecutor in cases related to the Trade Center bombing. Ms. Gorelick explicitly references United States v. Yousef and United States v. Rahman--cases that might have greatly expanded our pre-9/11 understanding of al Qaeda had investigators been given a freer hand. The memo is a clear indication that there was pressure then for more intelligence sharing. Ms. Gorelick's response is an unequivocal "no":
"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation" (emphases added).

In case anyone was in doubt, Janet Reno herself affirmed the policy several months later in a July 19, 1995, memo that we have unearthed. In it, the then-Attorney General instructs all U.S. Attorneys about avoiding "the appearance" of overlap between intelligence-related activities and law-enforcement operations.

Recall, too, that during the time of Ms. Gorelick's 1995 memo, the issue causing the most tension between the Reno-Gorelick Justice Department and Director Freeh's FBI was not counterterrorism but widely reported allegations of contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign from foreign sources, involving the likes of John Huang and Charlie Trie. Mr. Trie later told investigators that between 1994 and 1996 he raised some $1.2 million, much of it from foreign sources, whose identities were hidden by straw donors. Ms. Gorelick resigned as deputy attorney general in 1997 to become vice chairman of Fannie Mae.

From any reasonably objective point of view, the Gorelick memo has to count as by far the biggest news so far out of the 9/11 hearings. The Mary Jo White prosecutions and the 2001 Moussaoui arrest were among our best chances to uncover and unravel the al Qaeda network before it struck the homeland. But thanks in part to the Clinton Administration's concern with appearances and in part to its legacy, these investigations were hamstrung.

Ms. Gorelick--an aspirant to Attorney General under a President Kerry--now sits in judgment of the current Administration. This is what, if the principle has any meaning at all, people call a conflict of interest. Henry Kissinger was hounded off the Commission for far less. It's such a big conflict of interest that the White House could hardly be blamed if it decided to cease cooperation with the 9/11 Commission pending Ms. Gorelick's resignation and her testimony under oath as a witness into the mind of the Reno Justice Department. What exactly was the purpose of the wall?

Wall Street Journal pre Murdoch


Eric Holder’s Firm May Have Represented Undie Bomber Mastermind Before His Release
Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 3:44 PM
Jim Hoft
The leaders of the Detroit undie bomber’s Al-Qaeda group are Gitmo Grads and may have been represented by Eric Holder’s firm before their release.

Two Gitmo grads rehabilitated in Saudi Arabia rejoined the jihad and made a movie earlier this year.

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri (right) and former Guantanamo Bay detainee Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi appeared in a threatening Al-Qaeda movie earlier this year. Said Ali al-Shihri (or al-Shahri) passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen. (AFP)

The two set up their base in Yemen.

This week Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, claimed responsibility for Friday’s attempted bombing of a Delta Airlines plane as it approached Detroit on a flight from Amsterdam with almost 300 people on board. The terror group released its message on several Al-Qaeda-linked websites. Two former Gitmo grads lead this Al-Qaeda organization in Yemen.

There are questions on whether Eric Holder’s former law firm represented these Al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen who were the masterminds behind the attempted Christmas plane bombing.
Jammie Wearing Fool reported this from Pipeline News that Holder’s law firm may have represented the former Gitmo detainees who are Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leaders.

There is an additional and intriguing angle involving Yemen, creating a confluence between, that country, Ft. Hood and the Obama administration, in that U.S. AG Holder’s former law firm, Covington & Burling, represented a number of Yemeni detainees who are/were being held in GITMO.

It was meddling by committed lefty attorneys which made military prosecution of the GITMO detainees so difficult. Relentless pressure applied by these advocates is what ultimately led to the Hamden decision [Hamden vs. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 2006] in which the military tribunal system established by the Bush administration – relying upon long historical precedent – was overturned on a 5-3 Supreme Court decision, which for the first time in American history applied principles codified in the Geneva Accords to terrorists to which Geneva was long understood not to apply.

As we noted in a February piece [Former Partner Of Eric Holder's Law Firm Represents Cole Bomber And 14 Other GITMO Detainees, the involvement in this process by Holder’s old law firm was substantial.

After a year in office we all know that Barack Obama is the most radical anti-American president in US history.
But the fact that his Attorney General’s former firm may have represented Al-Qaeda killers who are now planning attacks against innocent Americans takes it to a whole new level.

Comments (33)


Even in an economic recession, Americans in urban areas continue to buy second homes in rural parts of the country, frequently helping to revitalize depressed areas. Inevitably, though, political operatives have also been seizing on weekend residents as a way to change the political complexion of rural communities.

Nowhere is the battle being more fiercely fought than in New York's Columbia County, a two-hour drive up the Hudson River from New York City. Local Democrats have encouraged weekend residents to register and vote on the theory that their ballots aren't needed in New York City, where Democrats already hold an overwhelming registration edge. In a lightly-populated upstate community, however, a few transplant votes can represent the balance of power.

That was certainly the case last month in the town of Taghkanic, which has about 1,500 people. In a closely contested race for local offices, more than 20% of the ballots were cast by absentees, almost all of them by weekend residents who appeared to have delivered narrow victories to local Democrats. In response, Republicans have sued, pointing to evidence that many of the absentees were people whose jobs, drivers licenses and primary residences were in New York City and legally should have voted there. Some may even have voted in both jurisdictions. Approximately 60 absentee ballots are at issue and could sway the result of some races if disqualified.

The case will be heard by a local judge in State Supreme Court in Columbia County tomorrow. Evidence before him will include spreadsheets showing that many of the county's absentee voters had signed affidavits for property tax exemptions on homes outside of Columbia County or signed second-home riders on mortgages securing their Columbia County property. Those riders explicitly say their primary residences are elsewhere.

"We are not against weekenders," says John Faso, a former GOP state legislator from Columbia County, who is supporting the legal challenge. "They don't realize they've been encouraged to vote in a way that isn't in accordance with the law." But Democrats are arguing that legal precedents allow people to choose where they can vote -- some have even launched a Web site called that urges weekenders to "vote where your heart is."

A charming sentiment, but it flies in the face of New York's election law, which includes several criteria for determining where someone can legally vote, including place of employment, location of tax payments and where a family's children go to school.

Flooding rural elections with newbie voters who really live somewhere else is a clever tactic, but it appears to violate election law and can also exacerbate often delicate relations between long-time local residents and newcomers. If weekenders want to vote where they claim their hearts are, let them give up their city tax breaks, their exemption from local jury duty and their often blissful indifference to the real problems and challenges of their adopted communities from Monday through Friday.

To read more stories like this one, please subscribe to Political Diary.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
More In Opinion

brutus smith

I see the Pravda news corespondent is at in again.


The disclosure comes as pressure builds from Democrats on Capitol Hill for quick January confirmation of Erroll Southers, whose nomination has been held up by GOP opponents. In the aftermath of an attempted airline bombing on Christmas Day, calls have intensified for lawmakers to install permanent leadership at the TSA, a critical agency in enforcing airline security.

Southers, a former FBI agent, has described inconsistencies in his accounts to Congress as "inadvertent" and the result of poor memory of an incident that dates back 20 years. He said in a Nov. 20 letter to key senators obtained by The Post that he had accepted full responsibility long ago for a "grave error in judgment" in accessing confidential criminal records about his then-estranged wife's new boyfriend.

His letter to Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, and Susan Collins (Maine), the ranking Republican on the panel, attempts to correct statements about the episode that were made in a sworn affidavit on Oct. 22 and have been reported.

Southers did not respond to a request for an interview.

'A serious error'

Southers's admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians, who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens' privacy.

Southers first described the episode in his October affidavit, telling the Senate panel that two decades ago he asked a San Diego Police Department employee to access confidential criminal records about the boyfriend. Southers said he had been censured by superiors at the FBI. He described the incident as isolated and expressed regrets about it.

The committee approved his nomination Nov. 19. One day later, Southers wrote to Lieberman and Collins saying his first account was incorrect. After reviewing documents, he wrote, he recalled that he had twice conducted the database searches himself, downloaded confidential law enforcement records about his wife's boyfriend and passed information on to the police department employee, the letter said.

It is a violation of the federal Privacy Act to access such information without proper cause. The law says that "any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000."

In his letter, Southers said he simply forgot the circumstances of the searches, which occurred in 1987 and 1988 after he grew worried about his wife and their son, who had begun living with the boyfriend. The letter said: "During a period of great personal turmoil, I made a serious error in judgment by using my official position with the FBI to resolve a personal problem." He did not specify the data system he accessed.

"I am distressed by the inconsistencies between my recollection and the contemporaneous documents, but I assure you that the mistake was inadvertent, and that I have at all times taken full responsibility for what I know to have been a grave error in judgment," the letter said. "This incident was over twenty years ago, I was distraught and concerned about my young son, and never in my career since has there been any recurrence of this sort of conduct."

How's is he going to act during a real emergency. Most cops thinks they are above the law. You go Jim DeMint but you know Harry Reid will sneak this appointment under the radar.


Another Blow to the Radical Left & Team Obama… 58% Want Undie Bomber Waterboarded
Thursday, December 31, 2009, 11:26 AM
Jim Hoft
I’ll pour the water.

Despite the constant drumbeat against so-called waterboarding “torture” by the state-run media and the Team Obama, most Americans want the undie bomber to be interrogated using the same harsh techniques that were uesd to gain information from 3 top Al-Qaeda terrorists.
Rasmussen reported:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% oppose the use of such techniques, and another 12% are not sure.

Men and younger voters are more strongly supportive of the aggressive interrogation techniques than women and those who are older. Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party favor their use more than Democrats.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.

But sadly the radical in the White House has already handed the Al-Qaeda terrorist over to civilian authorities.

Related… Waterboarding not only worked – It was a great success.

Comments (67)


January 01, 2010
Update on the Federal Judge's decision to throw out charges against Blackwater defendants
Clarice Feldman

The NY Times has more details on Judge Urbina's decision to drop charges against the Blackwater defendants, accused of murdering Iraqis in a 2007 ambush on a State Department convoy moving through downtown Baghdad:

The judge also blasted prosecutors for withholding "substantial exculpatory evidence" from the grand jury that indicted the defendants, as well as presenting "distorted versions" of witness testimony, and improperly telling the grand jury that some incriminating statements had been made by the defendants but were being withheld.

The prosecutorial team was led by Kenneth Kohl, an assistant United States attorney. The Justice Department declined to make him available for comment.

The judge's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct were the latest in several blows to federal prosecutors in 2009 in which judges dismissed high-profile cases and called the government's credibility into question.

Early in the year, for example, at the request of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., a federal judge threw out the conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, for having failed to report gifts on his disclosure forms. Justice Department officials had uncovered evidence that prosecutors in that case had failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense, as required by law.

And last month, a federal judge threw out a major stock option back-dating case against top executives of the chip-maker Broadcom after finding that a prosecutor in that case had inappropriately pressured witnesses to testify in a manner favorable to prosecutors.

So much of federal prosecutions depend on the Court being able to rely on the credibility of federal prosecutors. There's no reason for courts to do that any longer and we all will suffer because of the unethical behavior of a series of Department of Justice lawyers who simply refuse to follow their professional responsibility.



For all their railing against the evils of big bad banks, Democrats aren't shy about jumping into bed with them when the price is right. And they don't much care whether taxpayers lose out in the process. Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, and his cohort Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, are leaders in making support for delinquent banks into a respectable progressive cause.

OneUnited Bank, based in Mr. Frank's home state, landed more than $12 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program money last winter thanks to the congressman's insertion of language into the bill that gives the bank special consideration. Mrs. Waters, whose congressional campaigns benefited from OneUnited executives' donations of more than $12,000, also helped the bank by arranging a meeting between bank executives and government officials shortly before the bailout bill's passage.

Congressional financial-disclosure forms showed Mrs. Waters had up to $500,000 worth of stock in the company until 2004 and that her husband, Sidney Williams, was an investor who profited to the tune of $250,000 from a related bank merger. Mr. Williams also served on the bank's board until early 2008.

But the sweetheart deals aren't the worst of the bank-bailout story. Now OneUnited, which, as a decidedly unhealthy bank never even met the criteria for bailout funds in the first place, is failing to pay interest on its government handout - and it probably never will.

In November, the bank missed its third dividend payment in a row. Not counting the most recent sum it failed to fork over, the bank now owes the U.S. government more than $300,000. But because OneUnited has no holding company, it is not bound to pay dividends at all, which means it is essentially getting an interest-free loan, courtesy of Mr. Frank and Mrs. Waters.

Central Pacific Financial of Hawaii, which also has missed multiple dividend payments, was the only bank besides OneUnited to get funds from the bill following questionable congressional intervention. In July, it reported a loss of $146 million - due in large part to investments in the collapsing California housing market - and before receiving federal aid had been told by its primary regulator it did not meet standards for receiving help. A federal funds injection looked far from likely for Central Pacific - until Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat and one of the bank's founders, made a call to federal regulators. Two weeks later, the bank announced Treasury would give it $135 million.

The moral of the story is simple: When Democrats rail about the evils of unregulated business and the need for federal controls, remember that this is what they have in mind.


Hey Bung Lee, WHY has Sen. DeMint (R-SC) held up the nomination of obama TSA nominee Erroll Southers, a FORMER FBI agent?? How about he has presented himself with inconsistencies on his past performance? How about this hand picked obama crony with a full distortion of his record? I guess that does NOT matter when it comes to the TSA right? He CLAIMS he asked a San Diego PD employee to run background checks on his ESTRANGED wife's boyfriend and was CENSURED by the FBI for violation of POLICY?? Then he admits HE ran the background checks HIMSELF two times. Now we have a known LIAR, who FAILS to abide by FBI policy, signs a written statement to one story and then decides he better tell the TRUTH before Sen. DeMint finds out? Here we have a typical person to make up a FALSE CLAIM to cast BLAME on someone else and YOU want him to be in charge of the Transportation SAFETY Admiminstration?? More liberal entitlement, more privilege, more liberal lowering of standards??? Come on, I want to hear more EXCUSES from a RACIST for this obama FAILURE. Let's hear some rational thinking WHY we should simply allow an idiot like this to head the TSA. Like I wrote before, YOUR president has PROVEN he is totally inept in chosing responsible people to lead this government. AGAIN he is proving he wants his choice to be approved without any questions. Hmmm. Almost sounds like a dictator to me. Ha! Ha! You GO Sen. DeMint. Here is a tip, how about obama chosing someone that will be good for the nation? Oh, I forgot, racists just like YOU do NOT think like that. Ha! Ha!

brutus smith

The conservative media don't believe their own attacks
December 23, 2009 5:11 am ET

The best single reason to permanently ignore the rantings of the right-wing media is not that their attacks are often easily disproven. Don't get me wrong: That's a good reason. But the best reason is that it is clear the conservative echo chamber often doesn't believe its own attacks.

Take last week's explosive allegation, first described in detail by The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, that in order to secure Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-NE) support for health care reform, the White House had threatened to close Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base. That sent the right-wing attack machine into overdrive, with accusations of "politicizing national security" flying around and dark talk of the White House weakening U.S. national security and committing impeachable offenses.

It was an obviously ludicrous allegation (pushed, by the way, by people who worked for John McCain's presidential campaign), but it was hyped so forcefully that 20 Republican senators demanded an investigation.

Now, ordinarily, 20 U.S. senators calling for an investigation into a "scandal" the conservative media had been promoting would really set off a frenzy. Like sharks sensing blood in the water, right-wing bloggers and broadcasters would go for the kill. We'd see a constant barrage of attacks on Democrats for "blocking" an investigation into a vital matter of national security and allegations of corruption at the highest levels. They'd attack the media for not covering the alleged threat like it was Watergate, Teapot Dome, and Tiger Woods all wrapped into one. They'd be absolutely relentless.

But that didn't happen. In fact, the opposite happened: When those 20 senators sent a letter to the Armed Services Committee asking for an investigation, the right-wingers who had been so outraged promptly went silent.

On December 16, for example, an Investor's Business Daily editorial said the Obama administration's alleged threat "would amount to playing politics with our national security." IBD hasn't mentioned the allegation since, even though it devoted its December 21 editorial to Ben Nelson's support for health care reform.

On December 15, Hot Air blogger Ed Morrissey accused the White House of "extortion" and "threatening more base closures and disruption for [sic] national security." Morrissey wrote about Nelson twice more on December 17, again on December 19 and December 21, and once more on December 22 -- but he never again mentioned the base-closure allegation.

Last week, Glenn Beck suggested the alleged threat would constitute "high crimes" -- a reference to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" requirement for impeaching the president. Later that day, he said it "borders on treason." But then he went quiet. (Beck has been on vacation this week, but he didn't mention Nelson during last Thursday's broadcast of his Fox News show -- his last -- or his Friday appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. And if Glenn Beck really believed President Obama had committed anything approaching "treason" or a "high crime," you can be sure he wouldn't let a little thing like vacation keep him away from his chalkboard.)

Michelle Malkin wrote on December 15 that Nelson "is reportedly being threatened with closure of an air force base if he doesn't fall in line." Malkin has written at least nine posts since then that mention Nelson -- but has never again mentioned the alleged threat.

RedState's Dan Perrin wrote on December 15: "The White House and Democratic Leadership in the Senate has [sic] told Senator Nelson they will close every military base in Nebraska." That went further than anyone else, both by including the "Democratic Leadership in the Senate" in the threat and by expanding it to include "every military base in Nebraska." But Perrin, who acknowledged the threat was not "credible," has never again mentioned it, despite writing about Nelson on December 17, December 18, December 19, and December 20.

Even The Weekly Standard's Goldfarb has gone silent on his big "scoop" -- along with colleagues John Noonan and Matthew Continetti, who touted Goldfarb's claim on December 15 but haven't touched it since.

So what's with the sudden silence? Why isn't the right-wing noise machine that last week seemed so eager to accuse the Obama administration of "playing politics with national security" continuing the drumbeat? After all, it isn't like they've come up with any better ways to derail health care reform, which appears to be on the verge of passing the Senate (and is significantly closer to doing so than it was before Goldfarb came up with the Offutt allegation).

The simplest explanation is that they know the base-closing allegation is absolute nonsense, and they're afraid that an investigation into it would blow up in their faces.

Either that, or they take "playing politics with national security" and "treason" so lightly they just forgot all about it overnight.


Now if we could only get the GOP to follow suit...


Fear not, citizens, they have a firm handle on the situation.


Anus-covering or titanic overreaction?

Heads Will Roll...

brutus smith

APRIL 10--Under pressure from the September 11 commission, the White House today declassified and released an intelligence digest given to President George W. Bush weeks before the 2001 terrorist attacks. The confidential President's Daily Brief (PDB) for August 6, 2001 contained a two-page section entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," and refers to possible hijacking attempts by Osama bin Laden disciples and the existence of about 70 FBI investigations into alleged al-Qaeda cells operating within the United States. The August 6 PDB, an excerpt from which you'll find below, was presented to Bush while he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. The digest is prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency, an official from which briefs the president on the report's contents. While Bush critics have described the August 6 PDB as a warning of an impending al-Qaeda attack, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, testified Thursday that the document contained "historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information." (2 pages)


Chung Lee wrote on Dec 31, 2009 6:15 PM:
"As far as Chung Lee know it is not a crime to be a communist or a socialist in the US."

Wow, your wisdom speaks WONDERS and accolades to your personal and liberal agenda for the United States. If YOU want to be a part of those systems of government, please be my guest and expound your virtues in one of those countries. You know, an authoritarian party that holds power where ALL goods are shared?? Marxist-Leninist doctrine that advocates the overthrowing of capitalism?? I am sure you vision yourself as part of the proletariat. Ha! Ha! Your self aggrandizement to take what others work for so YOU can have your cut is very poignant?? Your posts speak volumes for what YOU want for America. Go liberals, go democrats, go socialists, go welfare, go communists, go racists!! Your post says it ALL!! Ha! Ha!

brutus smith

Taxpayer, Unfortunately it is not a crime to be a right wingnut either.


The Politics of Incompetence
By The Prowler on 12.31.09 @ 6:10AM

On December 26, two days after Nigerian Omar Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to use underwear packed with plastic explosives to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight he was on, and as it became clear internally that the Administration had suffered perhaps its most embarrassing failure in the area of national security, senior Obama White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and new White House counsel Robert Bauer, ordered staff to begin researching similar breakdowns -- if any -- from the Bush Administration.

"The idea was that we'd show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could," says a staffer in the counsel's office. "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary."

The White House, according to the source, is in full defensive spin mode. Other administration sources also say a flurry of memos were generated on December 26th, 27th, and 28th, which developed talking points about how Obama's decision to effectively shut down the Homeland Security Council (it was merged earlier this year into the National Security Council, run by National Security Adviser James Jones) had nothing to do with what Obama called a "catastrophic" failure on Christmas Day.

"This White House doesn't view the Northwest [Airlines] failure as one of national security, it's a political issue," says the White House source. "That's why Axelrod and Emanuel are driving the issue."

Axelrod, who has no foreign policy or national security experience beyond occasionally consulting with liberal or progressive candidates running for political office in foreign countries, has been actively participating in national security briefings from the beginning of the administration. He has also sat in on Obama's "war council" meetings, providing Obama with suggestions in both venues based on what he knows about polling and public opinion data, say several White House sources.

"[Axelrod] isn't sitting in the meetings telling the President, 'Do this because the polling shows that,'" says one source. "But we know that in less public settings, or on paper, David does provide guidance to the President that gives him added context to the recommendations and information our foreign policy and national security teams give him."

Axelrod's presence in the meetings has raised some eyebrows, as previous political advisers in the White House have typically not participated in such meetings. Bush Administration sources, for example, say that political adviser Karl Rove was not present at national security meetings.

Hope and Change but always blame Bush for your failures

6079 Smith W

‘Instead of giving in to fear and cynicism, let's renew that timeless American spirit of resolve and confidence and optimism. Instead of succumbing to partisanship and division, let's summon the unity that this moment demands. Let's work together, with a seriousness of purpose, to do what must be done to keep our country safe.’

- POTUS Obama, Jan. 2, 2010

Good for President Obama!

For once in a long time in his weekly address, he didn’t use it as a pulpit to bash Repubs. Maybe the man will keep his word about working in the spirit of true bipartisanship in the new yr.



Brutus, do you read what your post? The article suggests that the right doesn't bring it up anymore, the air force scandal, could it be that when the twenty people brought the issue up for an investigation, the investigation began and that forbids any dialogue of the subject during the investigation. My people,the right, are probably investigating the heck out of it and if they find anything, they'll be back.


Winston, I don't believe it, just lip service from the teleprompter to take the heat off. By the way, did you see the article where the Mayo Clinic is refusing medicaid patients for slow and low payback from the government, the same Mayo Clinic that the annointed man child praised for it's low fees.

6079 Smith W

From the lefty NY Times:

'The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.'

I've been reading where some of the people that Obie wants to keep in their homes are so far underwater that they don't ever want the house anymore and would rather rent. They’re walking away!

Leave it to dopey liberals to think that they know better for people than what they want for themselves.

Remember what POTUS Reagan said:

'The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

brutus smith

The un-named source said this and that. Those un-named sources sure say a lot of things that can't be backed up. Just like some right wing blowhards on here.
Ole McCain will have some splaining to do out in Arizona. HAahahaaah.




This just in...

Unemployment rate in December 2007 - 4.9

Unemployment rate in November 2009 - 10.2

Source CNN.

It was pivotal that we pass the stimulus so as to ensure that the rate would never exceed 8.8%

I wonder if he has a bridge for sale?

brutus smith

Worst year for jobs since '45
Annual loss biggest since end of World War II. Unemployment rate rises to 7.2%.

By David Goldman, staff writer
Last Updated: January 9, 2009: 12:11 PM ET
NEW YORK ( -- The hemorrhaging of American jobs accelerated at a record pace at the end of 2008, bringing the year's total job losses to 2.6 million or the highest level in more than six decades.



Your point?

Remember now, it's a three-phase government.

digger nick

Brutis, we love how you lefties spew forth your "facts" without documentation. Seems you have learned "cut a paste" pretty well but you would be better served spending more time on

First of all the unemployement rate is not now nor has it ever been close to a record. In fact this nations highest rate of unenployment was in the 25% range.

The unemployment rate for the years 1923-29 was 3.3 percent. In 1931 it jumped to 15.9, in 1933 it was 24.9 percent. It then steadily decreased until 1941 when it stood at 9.9%. In 1942, after U.S. entry into World War II, the rate dropped to 4.7%.

(Source) See also, the chapter titled "Annual Estimates of Unemployment in the United States, 1900-1954", from the National Bureau of Economic Research publication "The Measurement and Behavior of Unemployment")

If you measure the percentages in the number of jobs, you also have to take into considration that in 1933 there were 125,578,763 people living in the USA and in 2008 there were 304,059,724

Therefore your statement that "2.6 million people lost their jobs in 2008, bringing the years total job losses to the highest level in more than six decades" is fatally flawed as that would equate to a rate of .00855

It is just a matter of time before America see's thru obozo's attempt to "redisribute the wealth"

He would be better served trying to redistribute my work ethic than my money. I already give back 40% and refuse one way or another to give anymore.

If Barack Obama would release his Columbia thesis, this latest media pseudo-controversy would never have happened. But now the tittering hyenas on the left are howling at the moon over the satire of Obama's thesis that was taken for the real thing by Rush Limbaugh, Michael Ledeen at Pajamas Media, as well as by Denis Keohane at The American Thinker.

The fake thesis has Obama criticizing the Constitution, saying that "the so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."

But bear in mind one thing: as Michael Ledeen says, "it worked because it's plausible."

The thing is, Obama has said things very similar to the ones he is made to say in this satire of his thesis. He said them in a radio interview dating from 2001, which I ran at Atlas Shrugs on October 6, 2008. The fake thesis had nothing new in it -- it just echoed things Obama has already said.

In the interview, Obama discusses the best way to bring about a redistribution of wealth. He speaks of the "tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Yes, redistributive change. He said that it was a tragedy that the Constitution wasn't radically reinterpreted to force redistribution of the wealth: "I am not optimistic," he said, "about bringing about redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn't structured that way." He praised the Civil Rights Movement and its "litigation strategy in the court" for succeeding in vesting "formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples."

Yet for Obama the civil rights movement didn't go far enough, because it didn't venture into socialism. "One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."

This was the fault of the Supreme Court and the Constitution itself: "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical." And that was because of the constraints of the Constitution: "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted."

So he doesn't think redistribution of wealth can be accomplished through the courts, but he thinks it can be done legislatively. That is why a liberal supermajority in Congress is crucial to Obama's strategy.

Notice that Obama was not discussing whether redistribution of the wealth is right or wrong -- this was a conversation about how to achieve that goal. And this was back in 2001.

We'll never know what is in Obama's thesis, because Obama will not release it -- nor will he release any of his school papers, transcripts, crossword puzzles... nothing. What other politician ever got away with that? Obama had Jack Ryan's divorce and child custody records papers unsealed, which led to Ryan's resignation and Obama's first election win -- minutes before he decided to run for President.

But as for this thesis satire, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Ledeen and the American Thinker have little to apologize for. Obama has been on record favoring the redistribution of wealth for years. The lapdog media just never bothered to notice.


He runs and hides from info that doesn't buttress his views.

You know that better than I, digger. Legitimate sources that are contrary to his artificial reality are simply ignored. The topper on this day for me was when he states that liberals admit their mistakes.


brutus smith

digger nick, can you comprehend what the CNN money guy said? Obviously not. Reread it, think what he said, and I will await your apology.

brutus smith

And wetzu grow up and quit your crying.

digger nick

Sorry Brutis, evidently you AND he failed math. First you quote a percentage, then you quote a clearly mythical number.

You said:

" Worst year for jobs since '45
Annual loss biggest since end of World War II. Unemployment rate rises to 7.2%.

Thats false.

You quoted CNN saying:

NEW YORK ( -- The hemorrhaging of American jobs accelerated at a record pace at the end of 2008, bringing the year's total job losses to 2.6 million or the highest level in more than six decades. "

Again you lefty's leave out a key point. Job losses based on PERCENTAGE as you opened with is LESS than your so claimed record pace.

You cant have my cake and eat it too. Take Obozo's. I guess it could have been worse, One more who*e and we could have had Gore.

brutus smith

The U.S. Labor Department said Friday that the nation lost another 524,000 jobs in December, bringing 2008's total job loss to almost 2.6 million. The unemployment rate ballooned to 7.2 percent last month from November's 6.8 percent. That's a 16-year high.

brutus smith
brutus smith

U.S. lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008
By Louis Uchitelle
Published: Friday, January 9, 2009

NEW YORK — U.S. employers shed 2.6 million jobs in 2008, the worst year since 1945, the government reported Friday, and a rapidly deteriorating economy promises more significant losses ahead.

brutus smith

Econ 101
2.6 Million Jobs Lost In 2008
Publication Date:
January 2009

January 13, 2009—In December, the unemployment rate rose, as nonfarm payrolls declined substantially. A forward looking indicator of the housing market suggests that troubles in that sector will continue. Finally, factory orders were down in November.

The unemployment rate rose to 7.2% in December, a 0.4% jump. Nonfarm payrolls declined by 524,000. November's initial unemployment rate was revised upward, from 6.7% to 6.8%. November nonfarm payrolls declined by 584,000 after an initial report of 533,000 job losses. The economy lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008. Losses were recorded in both goods-producing industries and the service industry, though the public sector added jobs. The average workweek fell slightly to 33.3 hours from 33.5 hours. Average hourly earnings increased by 5 cents to $18.36 in December.


to 50 Million "Americans? YOU MUST DIE?
Ths DEATH PANEL (R) Michael Stephen Steele? (R) Orin Hatch? Charles Schumer? (R) JOHN BOEHNER? (D) Ben Nelson? (R) Jerrold Nadler? (R) Jon Kyl? (R) Michael Bennet? (R) Kent Conrad? (R) Charles Grassley? (D) BLANCH LINCOLN? (D) Kit Bond? JOE LIEBERMAN? (R) George Voinovich? (R) Mitch McConnell? (R) John McCain? (aol)


It’s Official… Obama Loses More Jobs In One Year Than Any President In Modern History
Saturday, January 2, 2010, 2:52 PM
Jim Hoft
Worst. President. Ever. President Obama is the “Unemployment President.”

The unemployment rate was at 10.0% in December.

As we look back over 2009 we can now report that Barack Obama lost more jobs in his first year in office than any president in modern history. Barack Obama lost over 4 million jobs alone since his failed stimulus was passed in February.
USA Today reported:

Even before Barack Obama took the oath of office, his economic advisers projected that without hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending, the U.S. economy could lose another 3 million to 4 million jobs on top of the 3.1 million lost in 2008.

It turns out they were optimistic. Even with the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama signed in February, more than 4 million jobs have been lost in 2009, the worst year for job losses since World War II. The jobless rate that advisers projected would peak at 8% has topped 10%.

And it took him until December to hold a jobs summit to address the problem.

And Doug Ross reports that things are likely to get much worse before they get better.

Comments (30)


Hey Brutie, the numbers for 2009 are not out yet. It is novel that you hurry up to post the numbers for 2008 before the performance of your boy is offically made known. Here is a tip. The unemployment rate NEVER reached 10.2% of the population since the great DEPRESSION like it did in the last half of 2009. How about CURRENTLY, there are 26.5 MILLION actual unemployed? Don't want to include those numbers? Should we put those DISMAL numbers on the 2009 stats or save them for 2010? Your boy is beginning to rack up more accolades and PROOF he might end up being the worse single term president in the history of the United States. So the "unemployment president" managed to lose more jobs than any president in modern history?? So how long do YOU keep BLAMING GWB? How about we BLAME Bush for all FOUR YEARS of FAILURE? Yeah, that will work. It appears YOUR liberal taxcheat, criminal, communist, maoist, marxist, socialist, and welfare government is beginning to FAIL. Go liberals, go obama, go democrats. Ha! Ha!

brutus smith

Well maybe there is a person who is more joyous at the pain and suffering of others than taxpayer and that would be you goofus. 45,000 more people died last year because of no healthcare. Are you happy goofus?


Media reported this statistic both uncritically and, often, breathlessly. The article on the estimate opens, "A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease."

But is it true that people die because they do not have health insurance?

The researchers who derived the 45,000 number by parsing demographic data about 9,000 adults younger than 64 years of age who passed away between 1986 and 2000 believe it to be. Led by Andrew P. Wilper of the University of Washington, the researcher calculated that people who had no health insurance had a 40 percent higher likelihood of dying than did people with insurance. Writing in the American Journal of Public Health, Wilper and his colleagues concluded, "Uninsurance is associated with mortality."

Nicholas Kristof also believes people die because they do not have health insurance. Kristoff devoted the bulk of his Sept. 12 New York Times column to the story Nikki White, who died in 2006 from lupus complications. White's lack of health insurance led to her death, Kristof argued.

Look at each of the admittedly sad tales of Americans dying too young summarized above, though. The causes of death were, respectively, acute appendicitis, heart disease and lupus. Also, according to Kristof, White underwent 25 surgeries in rapid succession after being taken to an emergency room when she collapsed shortly before her death. Each person died from a specifically identifiable physiological cause. Two of the people had no expectation that they had fatal conditions. And it is possible that overly intensively treatment stressed White's already fragile system beyond its limits.

In no instance did lack of health insurance kill anyone. When two of the people did go the hospital, they received care despite not having insurance, thanks in no small part to the decades-old Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act. Last, if 45,000 Americans did indeed die from lack of health insurance last year, how could one explain the other 2,381,264 death among, presumably insured, U.S. residents during 2008?

As attractive a rallying cry as "Lack of Insurance Kills" might be, the claim makes no sense. It also obfuscates the real problem and weakens the argument for making health insurance more widely accessible.

Certainly, too many people do not have insurance. People who know they cannot pay for health care tend to put off seeking care. This makes people sicker when they do show up in hospitals, which drives up the cost of their care and increases its intensity. Half or more of personal bankruptcies result from people being unable to pay high medical bills.

Lack of insurance, then, becomes more of a quality of life issue than an absence of life issue.


Somebody needs to investigate golf courses. I fear they are full of evil men! President Obama stated he was going to hunt down all perpetrators of Undiegate then immediately went to the golf course, to look for them? When O.J. Simpson was acquited he immediately responded that he was going to personally track down Nicole's killer. He then to conducted his search on golf courses in southern California. I think it's time for an investigation as to why so many evil people are hiding on golf courses. Maybe Sandusky could ask the border patrol to help, I'm sure their little suv's would be of help. It's time to take out the trash in Erie County's golf courses. "

brutus smith

An un-named source said only 44,999 died last year from the lack of healthcare rather than the 45,000 previously reported. They counted 1 brain dead Conservative who was actually declared dead 30 years ago.

brutus smith

Climate change increasing malaria risk, research reveals

digger nick

So since WHEN is healthcare a right? An obligation of the government? Dangerous victim-playing crybabies should instead focus their efforts or re-educating / retraining to obtain employment the offers this BENEFIT. Yes thats EXACTLY what it is a BENEFIT, not a god given right.

These ignorant welfare-glorifying pagans who want to take America from what it was founded to be, a free market society based on hard work and ethics to a government funded day care center.

When conversing with a liberal, I channel my inner dumb blond memories. I don't use a barrage of facts, nor do I lecture. Instead, I assert politely that I've learned the fact and then I ask the liberal to explain to me what the fact means. I do this even if I know perfectly well what the fact means. (And yes, women can do this more easily than men.)

A good example of this approach in action is universal health care. After you've said, "Gosh, universal healthcare would be really great," you should then follow-up with several "please enlighten me, Oh Great One" questions.

Thus, you might say, "England has managed care doesn't it? It's so funny, but I just read in the New York Times that there's a dentist shortage in England, so people are pulling out their own teeth. Are you sure that won't happen here?" This will either lead to bluster, an insult to British oral hygiene, or a good conversation about how important competition is to entice the best and the brightest into a profession and to keep innovation alive.

Another useful fact/loaded question is this one: "Someone told me that universal health care is kind of like social security -- it works best when there aren't a lot of old people, ‘cause they're the most expensive. I wasn't sure about that. What do you think?" When your liberal starts waffling on, throw into the conversation how you read that, in England, they're discussing euthanizing elderly demented patients, because their care is too expensive.

If you just keep politely throwing in unpleasant facts, followed up by respectful requests for enlightenment, your average liberal will either become tongue-tied, or, if intelligent, work his way through to the correct answer. With managed care, for example, he might conclude that, if you remove all competition and have only one provider, rationing begins, quality plummets, good people pull out of the system, and people suffer and die.

And if it ever happens that, after you've spoken with a liberal, the liberal actually agrees with you, just be sure to avoid one of the most poisonous phrases in the English language: "I told you so." Instead, quietly agree with your friend's wonderful insights, and have another conversation on another day.

brutus smith

I told you nick, you are digging in the wrong hole. No facts in that hole.

digger nick

Facts are:

" So since WHEN is healthcare a right? An obligation of the government? Dangerous victim-playing crybabies should instead focus their efforts or re-educating / retraining to obtain employment the offers this BENEFIT. Yes that's EXACTLY what it is a BENEFIT, not a god given right.

Please refute oh wise one where our constitution says we who work our a$$ off have to provide for you whom do not?

Gotta love it when a liberal can't blame anyone but themselves!


brutus smith wrote on Jan 3, 2010 4:49 PM:
Climate change increasing malaria risk, research reveals...
I believe that is the same UK-funded research that was found to be falsified. You know, in order to get more MONEY, fudge all the climate numbers. In easier terms for you crybabies, LIE. Like when a representative yelled out, "You LIE!!" How about you miserable liberals figure a way to harness all the energy and heat from all this COLD and SNOW. I am positive you liberal crybabies can find that green house gas someplace. Instead of PAYING into this HOAX, how about YOU liberal losers figure how to make all those green house gases start warming things up? We need to file a grievance because it is bitterly cold outside and the global warming and green house gas concept is NOT working. Let's see, who can we BLAME for this?? It must be George Bush's fault. Still believe in global warming?? Then go outside and jump into the lake so you can appreciate it. Ha! Ha!

brutus smith

Gotta love the I work hard for my money and you don't wingnuts. Do you guys live in the same trailer park?

digger nick

LOL Brutis have we met? I do own 2 trailer parks in Florida. Funny you should mention that. Back to my question you liberals LOVE to DODGE!

" So since WHEN is healthcare a right? An obligation of the government? Dangerous victim-playing crybabies should instead focus their efforts or re-educating / retraining to obtain employment the offers this BENEFIT. Yes that's EXACTLY what it is a BENEFIT, not a god given right.

Please refute oh wise one where our constitution says we who work our a$$ off have to provide for you whom do not?

Gotta love it when a liberal can't blame anyone but themselves! "

brutus smith

So nick, do you think we pay for people now that go to ER's and have no insurance and no money? The single payer system would be much less costly to all of us. Isn't that what this is all about,cost? I really don"t get it with business owners. It would cost them less.

digger nick

Brutis, one of the problems with our society is this sense of entitlement that the tax and spend Democrats have created. They increase their voter base by promising to give give give at no expense.

The reason a person can walk into a hospital (most are FOR profit) and receive free healthcare is because long ago some left wing liberal decided to MANDATE that care be given.

Suppose you own a restaurant and the government were to MANDATE that someone can walk into your restaurant that you and your family work hard to make a profit and survive, eat and walk out without paying simply because they are hungry?

Or you own an apartment complex that you are MANDATED to allow someone with no means to pay move in simply because they need a place to live?

Fact is big government continues to insert it's nose into every aspect of small businesses and that is 70% of the problem.

The other 30% of the problem is the tax structure that the tax and spend liberals try to shove down every small business owners throat each time they get into office. What would posses a person to open a business or want to continue to grow a business when for all their hard work the federal government takes 38%, the state takes 8 to 11% and the person who took all the risk (the business owner) is left with 5-6%?

Keep that up and you will see the people with the money to invest say the heck with it "I will just keep my money in the bank or gold and be happy with the 4-5% return with NO RSIK. That wont create many jobs will it? Nor will it increase the tax reserves collected by the government.

I read for years people whining and belly aching about Bush's and Regan's tax incentives claiming they were only for the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Example, Both of the aforementioned past Presidents put into place (which are set to expire under Obozo) tax incentives to stimulate the economy. One of the more popular ones was the capitol expenditures incentive which allowed businesses to write off new equipment at $250,000 per year instead of $125,000 per year. Also called section 179 deductions.

Lefties claimed that was a tax break for the wealthy but nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the companies I own buys a substantial amount of new equipment each year. Generally I max out that deduction but do not go over it as there is no tax benefit. However, when it was raised from 125 to 225 I purchased NEW equipment resulting in additional jobs for the people who build this equipment and their suppliers. If it goes back to 125 under Obozo, I will simply repair old and not buy new.

If you look at that on a grand scale of millions of small businesses buying new equipment which stimulates job retention and creation, that's a BIG deal.

This stimulates growth, spending and investment.

A government such as we have in place now who's idea is to spend it's way out of a recession by printing more money and creating an environment where more people depend on the government to live day to day will never work as has been proven many times over.

You and I cannot write a check for more that we have in our account without severe penalties. Why should we allow the government to do so?

One look at a graph of the price of gold from the date Obozo announced his run for the president to today gives you a pretty good snapshot of what the rest of the world is beginning to think of our increasingly worthless currency.

Next time you hear some liberal screaming buy American save jobs, ask them to walk thru their house with you and look at their clothes and toasters etc and see just how much of their goods say made in China or somewhere other than the USA.

Liberals can keep exercising the Ostrich theory and burying their head in the sand as much as they want but the problem will not go away. Face it, China owns our a$$ and the better part of the US dollars that are out there.

brutus smith

nick, I tried to have a reasonable debate but you went out to right field again. Reagan and Bush tax cuts helped everyone? You need to research reality and see how many businesses actually pay that 38% you mentioned.

Chung Lee

Buying new equipment creates new jobs but fixing equipment doesn't? If mechanics can't fix wouldn't they suffer and wouldn't the parts suppliers? Sounds like a real line of bull to Chung Lee. When they lowered the rate under Bush for capital expenses people bought equipment that they didn't need or bought it because it was new when they already had equipment that was still in good working order and then the depreciation was subsidized by the federal government! With that type of logic it is no wonder that some people don't see tax write offs as government handouts. Good example of this mentality is exhibited by Michelle Bachmann who rallies against welfare but her family farm has received hundreds of thousands in GOVERNMENT subsidies.

digger nick

Chung, Repairing equipment only keeps my employees busy along a with a few people who make replacement parts. My employees already stay busy. New equipment on the other hand creates hundreds of job orders for the various manufactures and sub contractors that supply the parts and do the assembly as well as the companies that ship and install.

Only a moron would buy equipment that they don't need. That simply ties up cash flow for a piece of equipment that is not producing.

While the narrow minded might compare this to a government subside, If you want to call it that so be it. But if it is a so called "subside" it's far better to have one that creates jobs that one that gives handouts such as welfare, section 8 housing, food stamps, etc and creates what sometimes become a way of life rather than the temporary assistance it was designed to be.

brutus smith

I've got a really hard time believing you have a shop, let alone employees. Your shallowness of thinking doesn't bode well for a businessman, especially in these times.

brutus smith

Manufacturing grows at fastest pace in 3 years
Private trade group’s December report shows U.S. recovery is picking up


brutus smith wrote on Jan 4, 2010 7:59 AM:

" So nick, do you think we pay for people now that go to ER's and have no insurance and no money? The single payer system would be much less costly to all of us. Isn't that what this is all about,cost? I really don"t get it with business owners. It would cost them less. "

1. You fail to recognize the RIGHTS of people to choose what they want in health care. You thumb your nose at PERSONAL liberty and chooses and want to FORCE everyone to follow what YOU want! You must be a wonderful parent! Your positions are just another socialist policy demanded by Big Brother. Be honest and just start screaming what you honestly believe, “The HE*l with individual and corporate rights!”

2. it’s about “cost”? I thought you socialists were saying it’s about the poor not receiving healthcare? BUT IN YOUR POST YOU ADMITTED the poor ARE RECIEVING HEALTH CARE? So what is it ‘comrade’, can’t you liberals stick to a position instead of changing with every sentence in an effort to confuse the issue?

3. It’s IS OBVIUOUS that you don't get what the business owners have against this socialist policy, every post you make is 100% contrary to individual rights of citizenries. Liberals have never had any idea what taxation, control and restrictions do to businesses. Liberals believe more government intervention and control by your Messiah is good for business! You believe the government has not only the right but the responsibility to control businesses AND individuals and this is why industry is moving out! ASK THEM or post some links that state otherwise! YOU CAN’T!! They are leaving due to Socialist control by the liberals such as you, and this includes Unions. It’s YOU and your dumb ideology that is running this nation and you have the nerve to blame others.
Only a FOOL would believe liberals support individual or corporate rights when it was liberals who started the KKK and the White League! Go somewhere where they appreciate your swill and distortion, the majority is on to your socialism.

Martin Luther King my hero was a Republican, he fought for our RIGHTS, not for handouts!

brutus smith

Bailey, reread my post, it isn't that long. I know you have comprehension problems, but read it slowly.

Chung Lee

Interesting...... according to diger, money spent to buy equipment creates jobs but "welfare" provided the the poor doesn't? In both cases the government is providing incentives that are designed to increase demand. The only difference is business has the option to buy new or make do with what they have. The poor unfortunately do not have the option to be hungry or not. Yes, in a healthy economy they have an option to get a job, but in today's economy.....all bets are off. To borrow one of your lines "only the narrow minded" could not see that demand is demand and a subsidy is a subsidy no matter how you want to spell it (subside).

digger nick

Brutus, It's not just a shop, it's a factory, as well as manufacturing, restoration and development and many other entities I am involved with. Pretty much all aspects of my companies are up in sales & revenue so I must be doing something right but thanks for your genuine concern.

What is it Chung that you find interesting about my statement that money spent on welfare does not create jobs? Aside from more people on the government payroll to administer these benefits, how many welfare recipients do you see out starting new businesses, hiring additional employees, or in any way stimulating the economy?

I am not insensitive to the fact there are people who need help from time to time on a temporary basis (after all the is what welfare was designed to be was TEMPORARY) but to many it has become a lifestyle and these recipients have developed a sense of "entitlement"

Our system is broken when we pay more to a family to sit at home than to work and lose these benefits. In a casual drive down ST Rt 250 I saw no less than 6 places with help wanted signs up. Granted they might not be the best paying jobs but they are in fact paying jobs. Unfortunately we have created a system where in many cases a person can sit at home and do NOTHING and between section 8 housing, food stamps and other welfare benefits earn MORE than if they took a job.

Case in point was the Arizona Senator several years back who wanted welfare recipients who were in good health and physically able, to participate in "workfare" where they would contribute back to the community by way of menial jobs such as cleaning up park, mowing lawns on county property etc and the ACLU went ape sh*t claiming this was unfair blah blah blah.

This is the problem our county faces. Granted it says:

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But it does not say "Come on over free ride for all line starts here"

It's high time the USA starts realizing our credibility in the financial world is suspect at best and if this spend spend spend attitude keeps going you might as well start using dollar bills for toilet paper as they will be worthless.

digger nick

Oh and Brutis for your view on Manufacturing heres one that out weighs your poinr. Please notice that it says "seventh straight drop" Looks like Obozo is not quite the "saviour" after all he has been there a year so it's his problem now. But we already knew that.

+ Construction spending drops for seventh time
Construction activity fell .6 percent, which is the seventh consecutive
drop. Economic writers call it a worrisome sign that construction will act
as a drag on the overall economic recovery.

6079 Smith W

Chung Lee wrote on Jan 4, 2010 4:42 PM:

‘according to diger, money spent to buy equipment creates jobs but "welfare" provided the the poor doesn't? In both cases the government is providing incentives that are designed to increase demand.’

Growth in an economy can only be brought about by an increase in productivity.

‘Welfare’ is a form of capital transfer from the productive to the unproductive and is a form of tax on capital.

Lower the tax on capital and leave it in the hands of the productive and the economy will grow.

Taking capital out of the hands of the productive to give to the unproductive impoverishes us all.

Capital given to the unproductive only helps to maintain them at a status-quo level and does not increase overall economic productivity.

The U.S. is rapidly creating a permanent welfare class and it will only further drain our limited resources.

6079 Smith W

More Obamanomics...

Economically for local and state govt. finances, it’s gonna be worse in 2010!

“U.S. states and Puerto Rico expect to have $83 billion less than they will need to pay for their programs in the current and coming fiscal year, the National Conference of State Legislatures estimates.”

The states have been borrowing from the Fed in order to help pay for their budget deficits. It has helped to keep thousands of teachers and other public employees in their jobs.

Obama’s ‘stimulus’ programs have been a boon for public and private union employees that overwhelmingly voted for him, but have done nothing for private enterprise.

Without growth in the private sector, this phantom 'recovery' is doomed to fail. Govt. can't keep propping it up with spending.

My question: If states are borrowing from the Fed, where’s the money coming from for the Fed to loan to the states?

6079 Smith W

Chung Lee wrote on Jan 4, 2010 4:42 PM:

“according to diger, money spent to buy equipment creates jobs but "welfare" provided the the poor doesn't? In both cases the government is providing incentives that are designed to increase demand.”

How is the following statement from Obama not contradicting you?

President Barack Obama, Weekly Address, November 21, 2009:

“This recession has taught us that we can’t return to a situation where America’s economic growth is fueled by consumers who take on more and more debt. “

“In order to keep growing, we need to spend less, save more, and get our federal deficit under control. We also need to place a greater emphasis on exports that we can build, produce, and sell to other nations – exports that can help create new jobs at home and raise living standards throughout the world.”

Spend less? Save more? Read like capital formation – supply-side not ‘demand-side’ economics doesn’t it?


digger, you are the MAN! You are absolutely correct! The liberal crybabies always DEMAND more money for more miserable FAILURE. Welfare was supposed to be like unemployment. A TEMPORARY help to get someone back on their feet. Now, it has morphed into a permanent ENTITLEMENT. "We DESERVE handouts because we are so SPECIAL, so pay up for MY REPARATIONS!" So WHO PAYS?? The people that PAY taxes. It is NEVER enough. So what is the liberal solution? Raise taxes on the WORKING people more so those that chose not to work can have more. Now what theory of government does this sound like? Keep it up liberals. Soon all you freeloaders will out weigh the taxpayers. WHO are YOU going to tax next? Ha! Ha! The simplicity of the FAILURE of socialism, communism, maxism, maoism, racism, taxcheatism of this democrat administration and the liberal agenda. Ha! Ha!

brutus smith

So we should let businesses and Corporations shaft our school districts? Sounds like welfare to me.

digger nick

Brutus, that statement makes no sense. The better corporations and businesses do (profit is not a dirty word) the more they pay in taxes. Furthermore the better a community performs in attracting and keeping those businesses the higher tax base (thru higher property tax, sales tax, and the payroll dollars going out into the community) is for the overall economy of that community.

Fact is the elected politicians set the taxing rates. Surely you are not suggesting that an elected official would promote welfare type benefits for corporation now are you?

brutus smith

Tax abatement's, equipment write offs, etc., etc.,. No matter what you want to call it, it's still welfare because the rest of the taxpayers have to make up for it. And when you close your contaminated site the taxpayers have to clean it up.

digger nick

Again Brutis your comment makes no sense. You said

" So we should let businesses and Corporations shaft our school districts? Sounds like welfare to me.

Again, the fact is that the business do not grant abatements or write the tax code. It is up to the community (elected officials) if they want to offer incentives for a company to build, expand or relocate.

I do not expect you to understand the concept given it's complexity and the apparent fact that you do not own your own companies but I will try to paint a layman's view of why this works.

if a company is given a 10 year tax abatement that amounts to let's say $250,000 in forgiven property taxes, the community leaders must decide if that is out weighed by the contributing economic growth in the community.

For example lets say the company in question will hire 250 new workers at $15.00 per hour. The following formula would be used:

250 workers X 40 hours a week X $15.00 = $150,000.00 in weekly payroll.

52 weeks X $150,000 weekly payroll = $7,800,000

Let's assume to be conservative that only 40% of that payroll is spent within the community that equates to $3,120,000 per year.

The cost analysis of granting a 10 year tax abatement is $2,500,000 which is MORE than made up in just the FIRST YEAR!!

There are many other variables that also make this a win win, where there are jobs, there are home sales, conveyance fees, new jobs from additional businesses that service the example cited as well as preserved home values etc.

As anyone with a basic high school economics class could see, this is a win win situation and far better than giving $250,000 into a welfare pot that does nothing to solve the problem long term.

brutus smith

You nick give all the scenarios you want it is welfare. The workers are paying their fair share, the businesses aren't. Bottom line.

digger nick

Brutus, I am sorry you don't own a businsess but perhaps someday you will and will see the light. Good luck