Blogs For Victory

Geesh – you’d think by now they’d vet a bit for this:

I previously blogged the tax problems of Lael Brainard, President Obama’s nominee to be Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. The tax problems are (1) twelve late payments of real estate and personal property taxes, and late payment of unemployment taxes; (2) failure to timely file employment eligibility verification forms for her household help; and (3) failure to substantiate home office deductions. Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus today annnounced that he would support the nomination and that the committee would soon vote on the nomination.

But, then again, if the Democrats are just going to keep approving the nominees in spite of incompetence and criminal activity, I guess it doesn’t matter – Obama should nominate a murderer, just to see how far he can go. The rest of us would like to know if there’s a limit to what Democrats will put up with…

This was amusing, does anyone really believe that Obama is angry about the leaks of his alleged Afghanistan deliberations?

“I think I am angrier than Bob Gates about it, partly because we have these deliberations in the Situation Room for a reason – because we are making decisions that are life-and-death, that affect how our troops will be able to operate in a theater of war. For people to be releasing information during the course of deliberation — where we haven’t made final decisions yet — I think is not appropriate.” – Barack Hussein Obama

Ben Nelson injects a note of reality in he Reid bill:

Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and one of three Democrats who have said they might not be in favor of starting debate on the big health care legislation, issued a statement on Wednesday seeking to clarify his view on procedural votes.

In his statement, Mr. Nelson repeated his longstanding position: He wants to read the bill that is now being completed by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, before he decides how he will vote on a motion to bring the bill to the Senate floor.

“As I’ve said many times before I won’t decide how I’ll vote on the motion to proceed until I know what I’m voting on,” Mr. Nelson said.

Which will shock and anger all good liberals – because if you take the time to read the bill the Republicans will find out what’s in it and then they’ll tell the people and before you know it, there’s massive opposition to the bill scaring off vulnerable Democrats. Much better if you just take Harry’s word that it’s a good bill.

But, good for Nelson – at least one Democrat doesn’t want to walk the plank for Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

I keep reporting this because it is becoming astounding:

Republican candidates maintain a six-point advantage over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

In my political experience – which goes back more than two decades – I’ve never seen the GOP leading in the “generic ballot” either by such a wide margin, nor over such a long period of time. The normal expectation is for a bit of flux in such matters – especially at a time like this when everything is up in the air and the GOP lacks firm leadership – but all we’re seeing for months now is the GOP maintaining an edge. And do keep in mind that these polls usually understate GOP strength.

Of course its still way early and of course 2010 can turn on a lot of different things – but right now I’m beginning to wonder if we should start thinking in terms of a big victory? It’ll have to be fought for, and fought for very hard…but if we do fight hard, why can we not score a victory of historic proportions? Perhaps the tide is not just turning in our favor, but that a GOP wave is building?

Time – and our actions – will tell.

UPDATE: And even liberal pollsters are picking up on Obama’s decline.

The decision by Obama to hold public trials for captured terrorists is undoubtedly stupid. On so many levels this decision is simply boneheaded. 

I’m sorry, but what message are we sending to the entire world, who will be watching, that American justice includes prejudged trials? We expect such things to happen in Iran, not here.

Obama allegedly taught constitutional law. So, perhaps he can explain the constitutionality of this situation? Obama has given terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the same constitutional rights as all American citizens. So, tell me, if you were ever on trial for something, how would you feel if everyone had already declared you guilty, and determined your punishment? Is that what America is about?

And if you were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s lawyer, wouldn’t you take advantage of these blatant abuses and violations of civil rights to declare a mistrial?

An act of war merits a military trial. If these terror trials are allowed to continue, especially when being used as examples of American justice, no matter what happens we lose.

Aside from the safety concerns, and the potential for intelligence gathering methods being revealed in public, there is another aspect of this situation that is troubling: the potential damage to our country’s civilian justice system.

The sad tale of a man who’s only interest – per his own words – is re-election:

House Democrats debated ways to address job creation at a caucus meeting Monday night, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised colleagues the chamber would take up a jobs measure after it completes its health care overhaul bill. That makes it unlikely to pass into law this year.

Why is ObamaCare more important than jobs? Because getting Americans back to work doesn’t provide campaign donations while getting ObamaCare through ensures that leftist moneybags keep the big bucks flowing in. Reid has said that his every move since being re-elected in 2004 has been geared towards his re-election in 2010…and that means that Reid doesn’t have time for such trivial matters as rising unemployment.

And neither, of course, do the rest of the Democrats – in fact, I think that the Democrats kinda like the rise in unemployment. After all, people on unemployment are dependent upon government, and thus will look kindly upon whomever promises to extend and/or increase benefits. Where’s the upside, to a Democrat, in getting people back to work? Especially if its work in the private sector entirely disconnected from any government activity?

Do keep in mind that if your goal is power, then you’ll do a lot of things which don’t make sense to people who have goals other than power. A politician who cared about Americans would do his best to get the private sector rolling again. A politician who cares about power calculates what is most likely to retain and expand his personal power. Some times the two things – power and people – can mesh in a happy equilibrium, but most of the time they are in direct conflict, and thus we see our liberals – from Obama, Reid and Pelosi on down – continually cutting the United States off at the knees. There’s no benefit, for them, in a strong, vibrant American population – but plenty for them in a crushed, demoralized America dependent upon government hand-outs.

Becoming the longest serving public nuisance in American history:

The Senate is a resolutely superlative place, so it was resolved that the august body on Wednesday will open its session by saluting Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Congress’ longest-serving member…

…Here are some of Byrd’s statistics: He was already married to his beloved Erma for nearly four years when Thanksgiving was deemed a federal holiday in 1941. He began his political career four years later as a member of West Virginia’s House of Delegates. He remains the only member of Congress to earn a law degree while a member of the federal legislature, according to his Web site.

He’s a complete horror, I’m afraid – he’s got federal tax dollars appropriated to build monuments to himself. Just completely entrenched; dug in tighter than a tick on a dog. The best argument yet in favor of term limits. Had we had a limit of three Senate terms, Bryd would have been forced out when I was 12 – instead of hanging around when I’m nearly 45.

The Culture of Death keeps trying to hide itself:

In a bizarre move that will cost British taxpayers thousands of dollars, the government has sued itself in order to hide the number of abortions done on babies with very mild physical disabilities. The pro-life movement in England has been trying to force the government to reveal the number of those abortions.

Last month, the Information Tribunal issued a landmark Freedom of Information Act ruling upholding a previous ruling by the Information Commissioner in favor of the Pro-Life Alliance’s bid to disclose the abortion figures.

Now, the Department of Health is taking the Information Tribunal to court in an attempt to prevent the publication of stats on babies who are aborted, such as those who merely have a cleft palate.

Julia Millington of the Pro-Life Alliance told the London Telegraph last week, “It is a reprehensible waste of public money and court time to continue a fruitless battle to hide this information.”

It is simply shameful that any child is aborted for something like physical defects – its eugenicist nonsense; anti-human cruelty. But, hey, if its save the NHS a pretty penny, then it must be good, right? Can you imagine how much it would cost NHS to fix a cleft palate? Goodness, start doing things like that and there won’t be sufficient pay raises for the unionized employees…

Because those stock prices are not sustainable:

Stocks are overvalued and the US economy is likely to fall back into a recession next year, well-known analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

“I haven’t been this bearish in a year,” she said in a live interview. “I look at the board and every single stock from Tiffany to Bank of America to Caterpillar is up. But there is no fundamental rooting as to why these names are up—particularly in the consumer space.”

Agreed – there is nothing in the US or global economy which warrants the sort of stock price run-up we’ve seen since March. Even if one wishes to keep faith with Obama and Keynesian economics, the best one could expect is that stock prices would not have fallen further than they did in March and, perhaps, have a 10% or so upswing. Right now, the S&P 500 is 64% above its March low – and there’s nothing to back it up.

From what I’ve been able to piece together, it seems that Treasury and Federal Reserve – by varied means – pumped money in to stocks in order to inflate the price. My theory as to why they did this revolves around the fact that the major banks are actually insolvent and pushing their stock price higher was the only means available to hide this fact – the rise in stocks allowed the banks to pretend they had profits, you see? What has happened now, however, is that the boom in stocks has taken on a bit of a life of its own – the suckers are really pouring in to this, the largest sucker rally since the Depression.

When will it all come crashing down? I’m sticking with March – not because I’m some sort of primo number cruncher, but because I just can’t see anyone keeping the ball floating up there longer than that, especially as I expect 4th quarter 2009 and 1st quarter 2010 economic numbers to be flat or down. Of course, it could go on longer – and, in fact, it is within the realm of possibility that the stock market will fly much, much higher – perhaps even in to record territory – before it comes down. All that depends on how much money fools are willing to put in to the market. But I don’t think we’ll see that, because the fools are really out in force in China and I expect that bubble popping to be the trigger for our stock slide…though it could be vice versa.

Its all smoke and mirrors, good people – we’re in a depression and its going to be a long, hard and slow climb out of it…and the longer we keep up with stimulus, bail outs and funny money, the worse it will get and the longer we’ll have to go before we’re free of it. Harsh as it would have been, it would have been better in September of last year if we had just let things completely collapse – we’d already be on the path to recovery, by now. But, as it is, we’re just putting off the day of reckoning.

HAT TIP: Mish’s

If a certain group/organization commissions a study, you can likely expect the results to reflect the agenda of that organization. One way or another, that group is going to get the result it wants. If a group funded by George Soros funds a study, you can reasonably be suspicious of the results.

So, what about when a study is backed by the government, and the government (read White House) is pushing for government run health care?

Annual mammograms for most women in their 40s have more drawbacks than benefits, said a panel of U.S. doctors that recommended women wait until age 50 to start getting breast cancer screening tests every two years.

The change in guidelines released by the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force, a government-backed physician group, said women in their 40s are more likely to get false-positive tests that can lead to unnecessary biopsies and anxiety. The recommendations, which also said that self-examinations were unnecessary, don’t apply to women who carry a high risk for breast cancer. Those women should talk to their doctors about when to get screening, the panel said.

The new guidelines, published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, pit the task force against the American Cancer Society, which insisted doctors should still advise women to undergo routine annual screening starting at age 40. About 64 percent of women ages 40 to 49 had an X-ray of their breasts during the past two years, the panel’s report said.

Isn’t that convenient? While Obamacare has yet to be passed, a government-backed group publishes a study with results that run contrary to other organizations long held standard… and it just so happens that the government-back group says that less testing is necessary. Could this be a preemptive justification for reduced medical care under a government-run health care system? Sure sounds like it to me.

Since this study came out, I’ve heard a number of stories that included women diagnosed with breast cancer in their forties, who feel lucky to be alive because the cancer was caught early. So, is it really unneccesary, as this study says, for women to wait until the age of fifty to start having mammagrams every two years, not one, or is it just a reason to deny insurance coverage for mammograms for women under fifty?

Let’s consider the statistics.

According to the National Cancer Institute,

From 2002-2006, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the breast was 61 years of age. Approximately 0.0% were diagnosed under age 20; 1.9% between 20 and 34; 10.5% between 35 and 44; 22.5% between 45 and 54; 23.7% between 55 and 64; 19.6% between 65 and 74; 16.2% between 75 and 84; and 5.5% 85+ years of age.

Obviously, younger women aren’t at risk, but 13% were diagnosed between the ages of 20-44. I can only guess how many of the 22.5 percent of the 45-54 age range were under fifty, but let’s say that it is less than half, or 10 percent of all diagnosed. So, we are looking at nearly a quarter of all diagnoses of breast cancer are of women under fifty.

Yet, this government-backed study says mammograms for women under fifty are not neccessary?

Tell that to nearly one of every four women with breast cancer who were diagnosed under the age of fifty.