From The New York Times:

It has been three decades since the United States suffered a recession that followed on the heels of the previous one. But it could be happening again. The unrelenting negative economic news of the past two weeks has painted a picture of a United States economy that fell further and recovered less than we had thought.

I said last year that we would hit a double dip in the second half of this year. Looks like I was right…

And we will get hit with a double whammy. The 7 trillion dollars in new debt and the downgrade of our credit rating. The White House is preparing for it. Looks like Obama will get his tax increase after all. A drop in the bond rating is the same as a tax increase for all Americans. Obama said so…

So now we can all pin the tax increase on Obama.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The NYT has an editorial about Elena Kagan and the Republicans who oppose her. The thrust of the piece is that they do not understand the Constitution and they are angered that she would not answer the way they wanted with regard to the Commerce Clause. The NYT is convinced that the federal government can do anything it wants under the guise of the Commerce Clause and that it is settled law because of SCOTUS rulings.

So the Republicans, according to the NYT, are supposed to bow down and vote for a person who has a history of ignoring the Constitution and who believes in Socialism just like her buddy Obama.

The problem is, that while the NYT is busy saying that it is OK to do anything under the Commerce Clause including forcing people to buy health insurance, the writer demonstrates that he does not understand the Constitution. The writer’s words show a definite misunderstanding.

The clause was the legal basis for any number of statutes of enormous benefit to society. It is why we have the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act, setting a minimum wage and limiting child labor. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing segregation in the workplace and in public accommodations. In cases like these, the Supreme Court has said Congress can regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, even if they are not directly business-related. NYT

I will not comment on the enumerated acts because I do not know how Commerce fits in and it is not important to the debate. What is important is the sentence; “In cases like these, the Supreme Court has said Congress can regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, even if they are not directly business-related.” [emphasis added]

The SCOTUS has ruled Congress can regulate ACTIVITIES. NOT buying health insurance is NOT an activity. The health care law punishes people for INACTIVITY.

The SCOTUS has never ruled that Congress can regulate INACTIVITY under the Commerce Clause (or any other as far as I know). All of the cited items are reported to be results of the imposition of the Commerce Clause and are stipulated as activities.

Even if one buys the argument that the Commerce Clause is unencumbered and allows politicians to regulate any activity whatsoever, no one can make the case that it allows Congress to regulate INACTIVITY. Never in our history has Congress been able to force people to purchase a product.

What will be next? Will we be required to buy a GM in order to help out that car company and its union employees?

The writer is obviously a “Journolist” Socialist who loves the liberal/progressive agenda and that is all well and good. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes.

But let us not take this editorial as some authority on the Constitution.

The writer went after Republicans for their supposed lack of understanding of the Constitution but the writer demonstrates limited knowledge as well.

Not to mention the NYT seems to ignore the Democrats and their leader and the way they trample the Constitution on a daily basis.

Never surrender, never submit.

Back when George Bush was president the al-Qaeda wing of the media, The New York Times, would routinely divulge our nation’s secrets. Sometimes the paper would sit on a story for a while and when they finally released it that would claim that they had held onto it because of pressure from the White House but that the public interest was best served by releasing the info. You had such a right to know that some Democrats leaked info as well…

The information released involved methods we used to track terrorists, the fact that we intercepted their phone calls and any number of other items dealing with our security. If it was a national security secret then it was a sure bet the NYT would release it.

Recently a terrorist made his way on an airplane and tried to blow it up. The Transportation Security Administration sent out a memo about increased security and that memo was not supposed to be released to the public. Evidently, several bloggers got hold of it and published it.

Were they honored as serving the public’s interest? Were they deemed to have the best interest of the country at heart? Were they held up in liberal worship as the NYT is?

No, they were served subpoenas and told that they had to divulge who gave them the information. The government used its ham handed techniques of threatening the livelihood of the people if they did not cooperate and laptop computers were taken. While the terrorist who tried to blow up the plane has received the best medical care in the world and was read his Miranda Rights two people who broke no laws are being harassed by the government.

I can understand the TSA being a little touchy because this is the second time in a month that confidential information belonging to them has wound up on the web. They have a leak and it is up to them to find it.

I have no problem with the government trying to keep its secrets secret but the review should involve looking at the people who work for the agency. Look at the emails and see who sent it out and fire that person.

If government is this hell bent on pursuing leaks then I expect to see subpoenas hit the NYT next time there is a leak.

Of course that leak won’t be until there is a Republican in the White House…

Source:
Yahoo News

While the Global Warming summit at Copenhagen teeters on the edge of being a farce American Thinker has published an article showing that the polar ice cap melting issue has been a farce for 128 years.

The American Thinker has headlines from the New York Times that show the paper has been hyping the melting polar caps for 128 years. It seems to me that the polar caps are still there even though they have been melting and we have been on the verge of losing them for over a century.

It also seems that this hype is no different than what we are hearing now.

Be sure to visit the website and read all the headlines dealing with this issue. See if the headlines don’t look like they could be in the paper today…

David Rohde, a reporter for the New York Times, was captured in Afghanistan seven months ago and a few days ago he escaped and is on his way to safety. I am happy he escaped and hope he is none the worse for wear.

The story of his capture was not made public by the NYT. Bill Keller decided that it would put him in danger if the story was published so the took the “agonizing” decision to keep it under wraps.

Deciding not to report initially on reporter David Rohde’s capture by the Taliban for seven months was “an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again,” New York Times executive editor Bill Keller said Sunday.

“All along, we were told by people that probably the wisest course for David’s safety was to keep it quiet,” Keller said in an interview on CNN. My Way News

This is the same New York Times that disclosed one secret government plan after another even after being asked not to so that our troops would not be placed in further danger. The NYT only held one story and did not do that for very long. The paper decided that it was in the public’s interest to know about the secret programs.

When it came to one of their own, the paper decided to keep the story quiet so as not to endanger the employee.

Where was the public’s interest?

This is further proof that the NYT is an anti American paper. They took great pride in hurting America when George Bush was trying to protect us even though they were told it could place our troops in further danger.

This should demonstrate the bias of the NYT as well as their hatred of our troops.

When Sarah Palin was the victim of a prank phone call from a few Canadian comedians the liberals loved to make fun of her. She was called an airhead and made fun of all around. Much to her credit, she laughed it off. She is not the first famous person to be fooled by these pranksters and she will certainly not be the last.

When this happened the New York Times political blog ran the story and they were pretty fair about it. They reported it and indicated that several other celebrities had been the victims of this radio station. The comment section however, was full of missives by people who swore that this confirmed she was stupid. The reality is that Sarah Palin is intelligent and a genuine person who cares about her country and sticks to her values.

The stupid people are the Obama supporters who were unable to answer questions after the election. There are still an amazing number of people who think Palin said she could see Russia from her house (Tina Fey said that on SNL). These same people could not identify Obama as the person who said his policies on coal would ruin that industry. On the bottom of my sidebar is a list of videos. Click on the one labeled Obama Supporters and watch the people who think Palin is an airhead. The fact that these people are allowed out in public without supervision (much less allowed to vote) is scary. As an added bonus, click on the one labeled Lib Morons and listen to the Obama followers support McCain’s positions. Then tell me that an informed electorate voted for Obama.

Well, it looks like the New York Times is full of airheads, if we apply the same logic to them that was applied to Palin. The Times printed a letter that was supposed to be from the Mayor of Paris. The letter from Mayor Bertrand Delanoe was critical of Caroline Kennedy and the idea that she wanted to be a Senator. The problem is, the letter was a fake. The Times failed to verify the authenticity of the letter before publishing it.

Palin was unable to verify a phone call but an entire news organization was unable to verify a letter. She was labeled an airhead and the Times printed an apology.

It should surprise no one that the Times was lax. The paper has printed many articles that were in error and they are often guilty of ignoring the truth in order to advance a political agenda.

I will take Sarah Palin over any of the ever dwindling pool of workers from the NYT any day. Palin is intelligent, ethical and principled, three things that one cannot say about anyone at the Times.

Palin will be back on the national scene and when she reappears things will be a little different. After four years of the inexperienced hack that the fools in America elected, people will begin to see the real value of Palin and her experience.

President Palin. That sounds nice and we can rest assured that there are no radical preachers, unrepentant terrorists or scuzzy money launderers in her past.

She also has a valid birth certificate.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

Last week Barack Obama had a piece published in the terrorist daily brief known as the New York Times. Senator John McCain sent the NYT his response to the Obama piece and it was promptly rejected by the NYT Editorial Board. In an email exchange, David Shipley (who served in the Clinton Administration), told Michael Goldfarb of McCain’s campaign, that they would like to work with the Senator to get the piece published but had to reject it at this time. Then, a few suggestions were offered to make it more Times friendly:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out
how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,

David Shipley NYT

Assuming Shipley really wants to publish something from McCain rather than bury his article (and without Drudge this might have been buried forever) we need to look at what he expects. Shipley wants McCain to refine his piece so that it mirrors Obama’s. One might think he meant that it should follow the same format and he certainly outlined it that way by indicating that it should explain how McCain defines victory, troop levels, and timetables for measuring success. That might be a reasonable request in the liberal world.

The problem is, it is more likely that Shipley really wants McCain to mirror Obama’s plan for defeat. Nowhere in Obama’s piece did the young Senator define victory. Nowhere did he discuss troop levels and nowhere did he describe a timetable for success. Obama states he will remove all of our troops (leaving a small contingent) within 16 months. Let me reiterate, OBAMA DID NOT DISCUSS WHAT VICTORY WOULD BE. He is vested in defeat and this is why the NYT had no problem publishing his article. Obama’s piece discussed his plan in vague terms and left it open to revision depending on the situation on the ground.

Obama says that he would redeploy our troops and that he would be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. This is the same mantra he has been saying for over a year. In all reality, most of the stuff in his piece is from his stump speeches. The NYT might be accurate that the piece appeared before a particular Obama speech but the content has been part of his speeches for quite some time. Therefore, contrary to Shipley’s claims, the Obama piece did not offer new information.

The 16 month withdraw and leaving troops behind are not new plans. The only thing that is recent is that Obama would now like to have a surge in Afghanistan. He wants to put more troops in Afghanistan despite his objections to doing that in Iraq and despite his assertions that the surge has not worked. He gave credit to the troops but he was quick to point out that Iraq’s government has not held up its end of the bargain. Senator Obama is criticizing the Iraqi government for being slow when our own government has been non existent this year (and for many years). Nothing substantive has been accomplished by our do absolutely nothing Congress and we are not fighting a war on our soil.

The New York Times has demonstrated its liberal bias just as the major broadcast media did when it decided to follow Obama all over the world. When McCain made trips to the war zones, did all the anchors follow him around? It is obvious that the Times does not want to print McCain’s piece because it runs contrary to their opinions and it paints Obama in a poor light because it points out that Obama has never mentioned victory. The reality is that the Times will print any liberal tripe sent to it by left wing celebrities and Democrats in Congress. This is their definition of unbiased reporting. The amazing thing is that liberals who mock Fox for its Fair and Balanced slogan look at the Times as acting fairly.

Is it any wonder that the Times’ circulation is down and that the once great paper is being run into the ground? While I won’t lose any sleep if they go belly up, a lot of people will be out of jobs if they do not right that ship. The last thing we need is one more thing for them to blame on George Bush.

In any event, the McCain Op-Ed was printed in full on Drudge. At least we can count on Drudge to publish things.

Robert Rubin is set to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. To some this is seen as some great thing because of his experience in the financial world. Given that he supports Democrats it was just a matter of who and given that he had misgivings about her ability to be elected as well as their past run ins it is likely that his endorsement came as a result of some arm twisting by his former boss, Bill Clinton. Interestingly, the article states:

Her husband will continue his bustling fund-raising pace on her behalf, meanwhile: he will headline two major events for her in New York in the next few weeks, as well as one in New Jersey next month. He will also host fundraisers for her in Dublin and London next weekend — receptions that could be especially lucrative given his popularity in both countries, especially Ireland, where he played a major role in the Northern Ireland peace process. New York Times

Forgetting that Dublin and London are not countries, why are they raising money in other countries? Why is foreign money being used to influence an American election? Will they discuss any fund raisers in China?

After all, that is where the Clintons get their money (just ask Bill about the 8 million for AK 47s).

Others with similar posts:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, guerrilla radio, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Allie Is Wired, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.