Conservatives Monitoring The Liberal Left
Clueless
SEIU behind anti-tea party website
Jan 31st
POLITICO: Cheney group recalls ‘24′ – Ben Smith – Cheney group recalls ‘24′
Jan 10th
Liz Cheney’s group, Keep America Safe, is out with a new video that casts President Obama’s response to the Christmas Day terror attempt as a parody of the television show “24.”
The video uses unflattering moments from the administration’s response — Gibbs and Napolitano intoning that “the system worked,” Obama golfing — over high-adrenaline music and the sound of a ticking clock.
The ad, among other things, confirms the show’s central place in the American argument about security and civil liberties.
Original article here.
Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama’s Cap and Trade laws
Nov 29th
Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama’s Cap and Trade laws.
Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.
Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.
At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.
The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.
At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.
Source: Telegraph.co.uk
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Oct 21st
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13. That’s just a point above the lowest level ever recorded for this President. It’s also the sixth straight day in negative double digits, matching the longest such streak (see trends).
Just 31% of voters believe that Congress has a good understanding of the health care proposal.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Republicans have a favorable opinion of their party’s national chairman, Michael Steele.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter andFacebook.
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.
The New Jersey Governor’s race remains a toss-up. Over the past week, both Jon Corzine and Chris Christie lost ground while support independent candidate Chris Daggett grew and so did the number of undecideds. Republicans hold a five-point advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot. In Illinois, the race for Barack Obama’s Senate seat is a toss-up.
Rasmussen Reports is growing. We’re pleased to report that John Troyan has joined our team as a Sales Manager, Debra Falk is our new Director of Communications, and Alex Napoliello is a new Website Administrator. The talent and experience of our new team members will help us get the public and the media the information they need, when and how they need it, while extending the reach of our brand and our portfolioof services.
(More Below)
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats is down to 42%. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed.
Scott Rasmussen has recently had three analysis columns published in the Wall Street Journal. The most recent was on health care. Earlier columns were on the President’s approval ratings and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott’s favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.
(More Below)
About our Polling
Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from theNational Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.”
Additionally, an analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race. That stability is one reason that Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I’d want with me on a desert island.”
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.2% Democrats, 32.7% Republicans, and 30.1% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
Read more at their web site: http://www.rasmussenreports.com
Majority of Nobel jury ‘objected to Obama prize’
Oct 16th
Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US PresidentBarack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday.”VG has spoken to a number of sources who confirmed the impression that a majority of the Nobel committee, at first, had not decided to give the peace prize to Barack Obama,” the newspaper said.
In a surprise move last Friday, the Nobel committee attributed the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama less than nine months after he had taken office.
The committee, appointed by the Norwegian parliament, honoured Obama for “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
“The committee was unanimous,” its influential secretary Geir Lundestad told AFP on Friday.
But Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises, the newspaper said.
It also said the representative of theConservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections.
The choice for Obama was however strongly supported by committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck, both representatives of the Labour Party.
The members of the committee represent their parties but do not sit in Norway’s parliament.
“Each year, we start with many candidates and many different points of view and agree as the discussions move along. This year was no exception,” Lundestad commented Thursday.
The newspaper quotes Ytterhorn and Five as saying they both supported the committee’s final decision.
Obama himself said he was “surprised” and “deeply humbled” by the prize.
Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
SEIU! SEIU! SEIU!: Obama Pledges to “Paint the Nation Purple”
Oct 12th
SEIU Local 880, based in Chicago, is one of the largest SEIU union locals. It was founded and has been long controlled by ACORN and Wade Rathke. This recently uncovered video shows presidential candidate Barack Obama discussing his long and close ties to SEIU. This is not your typical political pandering. This is someone who feels at home, talking to close friends and family.
Progressivism? Not so fast, folks
Oct 7th
The progressive movement in the United States is generally traced back to Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, but he took his lead from predecessor Teddy Roosevelt and expanded on it.
The intellectual foundation of the progressive movement, though, can be traced farther back — to the French Revolution inspired by Rousseau and Robespierre. The central faith was that the “collective” was more important than the “person.” Robespierre said, “The people is always worth more than individuals. … The people is sublime, but individuals are weak.”
Following the progressivism of Wilson were communism, fascism and Nazism. All believed in the state and tried to marginalize religion. (These leaders desired that the least feel comforted only by the generosity of the state.)
Progressivism and its progeny all believed in the fairness and wisdom of decisions made by the state — often at the expense of the individual, who, it was believed, made selfish decisions. All demanded that the state have an increased role in raising children. Adolf Hitler scoffed at those who remained opposed to him, saying he already had control of their children.
All believed in the minimum wage, state control of private property for the public good, unionization and environmentalism. And they believed in eugenics to purify the gene pool.
It is now fair to wonder whether we are returning to a belief that only a powerful central government can fix all of our problems. Victor Davis Hanson wrote in the National Review that President Barack Obama is governing as though the United States were a university and he its president. Governing by czars fits that example. A diversity czar, environment czar, pay czar, science czar, manufacturing czar and, of course, health czar could deal with the “whole” of an issue rather than looking at it piece by piece. This is not unlike the women’s studies, black studies, diversity studies, environmental studies and other obsequious studies in most academic settings.
And with the Obama administration, just as in Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy and Wilson’s America, the leaders of major corporations are falling in line. Whether it is climate change, executive pay, automobile manufacturing or bank buying, CEOs step right up and wait for the tax benefits to surely follow their pandering. And the CEOs stood mute while bondholders saw their investments given to the unions. David Broder recently quoted an article by William Schambra of the Hudson Institute. Schambra writes that “Obama is emphatically a ‘policy approach’ president. … Long-term, systemic problems of health care, education and the environment cannot be solved in small pieces. They must be taken on in whole.”
Broder notes that Schambra traces the roots of this approach back to the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries — when progressives believed that social sciences should instruct government. Broder compares Obama’s approach to governing with that taken by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
And just as was the case with Wilson, Carter and Clinton, Obama blames selfish individuals or corporations for the problems he seeks to redress. Eighty-five percent of Americans are happy with their health care, and Obama blames greedy insurance companies for this huge failure, which he seeks to correct by taking over 16 percent of our economy.
The principal sin in politics is overreaching. Americans have in the past repeatedly voted for freedom and the supremacy of the individual over the state. It will happen again.
Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27986.html#ixzz0TI8DXwfm
ACORN Head Organizer In Missouri Admits Dual Roles
Sep 29th
I’m no lawyer, but if I worked for ACORN, the last thing I would do is publicly go out and say that I sometimes work for the nonprofit, community goodwill, and other times I’m out pushing for political change. And if I worked for ACORN in St Louis, whose ACORN Housing subsidiary was shut down precisely because of accusations that the federally funded subsidiary was paying for rent and employment for the political arm, I really wouldn’t be out admitting that it all comes out of the same pool.
But that’s exactly what Glenn Burleigh just did over at Show Me Progress in an interview with Hotflash, and it’s exactly why so many lawmakers are distancing themselves from the group.
The other damaging piece of press on Friday was this:
The embattled community activist group ACORN appears to be collecting charitable contributions through affiliate organizations that it then uses for impermissible lobbying and political activity,says the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee.
[italics mine]I asked Burleigh about this charge as well. He said that most non-profits can’t afford to hire separate people for the non-profit aspect of their work and the lobbying or political part of their work. He, for example, reports how many hours a week he spends on the work that’s paid for by charitable contributions and how many on political work. But he gets one pay check.
Read the full article at: www.24thstate.com
Obama plays dumb on ACORN
Sep 20th
Obama plays dumb on ACORN
Channeling clueless Charlie Gibson and Nancy Pelosi, President Obama is playing dumb about ACORN. Here’s what he said on ABC’s This Week this morning:
Read More @ michellemalkin.com
Taxpayers Face Heavy Losses on Auto Bailout
Sep 9th
AP - Wednesday, September 09, 2009
WASHINGTON – Taxpayers face losses on a significant portion of the $81 billion in government aid provided to the auto industry, an oversight panel said in a report to be released Wednesday.
The Congressional Oversight Panel did not provide an estimate of the projected loss in its latest monthly report on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. But it said most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC late last year is unlikely to be repaid.
“I think they drove a very hard bargain,” said Elizabeth Warren, the panel’s chairwoman and a law professor at Harvard University, referring to the Obama administration’s Treasury Department. “But it may not be enough.”
The prospect of recovering the government’s assistance to GM and Chrysler is heavily dependent on shares of the two companies rising to unprecedented levels, the report said. The government owns 10 percent of Chrysler and 61 percent of GM. The two companies are currently private but are expected to issue stock, in GM’s case by next year.
The shares “will have to appreciate sharply” for taxpayers to get their money back, the report said.
For example, GM’s market value would have to reach $67.6 billion, the report said, a “highly optimistic” estimate and more than the $57.2 billion GM was worth at the height of its share value in April 2008. And in the case of Chrysler, about $5.4 billion of the $14.3 billion provided to the company is “highly unlikely” to ever be repaid, the panel said.
Treasury Department officials have acknowledged that most of the $23 billion provided by the Bush administration is likely to be lost. But Meg Reilly, a department spokeswoman, said there is a “reasonably high probability of the return of most or all of the government funding” that was provided to assist GM and Chrysler with their restructurings.
Administration officials have previously said they want to maximize taxpayers’ return on the investment but want to dispose of the government’s ownership interests as soon as practicable.
Read More: Fox News