Via the Associated Press today (“New home sales drop in Feb. to new low”) — Surprise, surprise (NOT):

Sales of new homes fell unexpectedly to the lowest level on record in February as stormy winter weather kept buyers on the sidelines. The weak results make clear the difficulties facing the housing industry as it tries to recover from the worst slump in decades.

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new home sales fell 2.2 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 308,000.

It was the fourth consecutive month of declines and the worst showing on records dating to 1963. January’s results, meanwhile, were revised upward slightly to a pace of 315,000.

Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected February sales would rise to an annual rate of 320,000.

… Some homebuilders say their outlook is getting better, but the recovery is not a strong one.

At InvestmentAdvisor.com today, concerning yesterday’s existing home sales report (“Existing Home Sales Fell Slightly in February; Supply of houses took a big jump over January”):

In a sign that the fragile housing market is still searching for its footing, sales of existing homes fell slightly in February. The National Association of Retailers (NAR) said Tuesday, March 23, that sales of existing homes dropped 0.6% in February from January, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.02 million.

Buyers did not seem enticed by average national rates on 30-year mortgages that dipped to 4.99%, according to Freddie Mac, nor by the government’s tax credit for purchases of homes.

But widespread storms in February likely dampened sales, according to Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist. “Some closings were simply postponed by winter storms, but buyers couldn’t get out to look at homes in some areas and that should negatively impact near-term contract activity,” he said in a statement.

Another disturbing bit of news was the large jump in housing inventory at the end of February, which rose 9.5% to 3.59 million existing homes, which represents a supply of 8.6 months, up from a 7.8-month supply in January.

According to Michael Alfstad, president and CEO of the advisory firm Alfstad Capital in Seattle, there was darker news buried in that particular set of numbers.

“The existing inventory increase was a bit misleading because that doesn’t track the shadow inventory, all the homes in foreclosure or owned by financial institutions, and that number continues to grow,” Alfstad said in an interview. “From a market participation standpoint, the housing numbers today have definitely turned a corner – they’re getting worse rather than getting better.”

The weather-related whining brings to mind a TV ad that will forever live in infamy:

Maybe the Obamabots need to consult with Jeff Skilling and other former Enron execs about weatherproofing economic results.

____________________________________________________

Related: Rebound? What Rebound?

Lucid Links:

As you read this, imagine how different things might be in the Buckeye State if Ohio’s Republicans or Democrats used the same procedure to select their candidates as Utah.

Here’s the first paragraph:

Here is the report on Caucus night here in Utah. Here in Utah we elect delegates to the Republican convention. At convention, if a candidate gets 60% of the delegate vote, they immediately advance to general election with NO primary. This levels the playing field so candidates with relatively little money can challenge an entrenched incumbent.

The rest of the reader’s e-mail to Instapundit notes how the process served as a de facto and richly deserved advance humiliation of RINO U.S. Senator “Toxic Bob” Bennett. But note that the delegates going to the convention are NOT formally committed to a given candidate.

At the convention itself, there’s a multi-ballot process that serves to gradually eliminate minor contenders (exemplified here).

If this system were in place in Ohio this year with the current players:

• Dave Yost would likely have stayed in the Attorney General’s race and kicked ORPINO (Ohio Republican Party In Name Only) candidate Mike DeWine’s keister to the curb.
• Sandy O’Brien would have had a chance in front of a sympathetic audience to make mince-meat of Jon “I live in Columbus but pretend to represent Montgomery County” Husted in the Secretary of State contest (she may yet do so; anyone ruling it out doesn’t fully appreciate what’s going on in the grass roots, or how angry many of us are at Husted’s court-sanctioned but still bogus residency sham).
• Tom Ganley, though his prospects were much dimmer, would have at least forced presumptive U.S. Senate nominee Rob Portman to say something of substance before September (if ever).
• On the Dem side, Lee Fisher and Jenny Brunner would have a legitimate face-off instead of avoiding each other. Theirs is the kind of race that would likely still go to the primary ballot.

Beyond that, more concerned citizens might be inclined to run for office.

Shoot, given what happened when grass-roots Republicans had actually had their say in 2006 — even in that pre-Tea Party environment — it’s not inconceivable that then-incumbent US Senator Mike DeWine might have been taken down by Bill Pierce. At a minimum, DeWine would have had to work up a serious sweat instead of coasting on a barrel of cash and rigged big-county “endorsements.”

Maybe the percentage threshold should be different, but if/when Tea Partiers turn ORPINO back into the ORP again, a move to a process like Utah’s deserves very serious consideration.

___________________________________________

At the Catholic News Agency: “Prop. 8 opponents object to making disclosures already required of Prop. 8 supporters.”

The CNA item notes that an ACLU lawyer whined to the Associated Press that “A core issue in the case is whether the motivation of those who put Prop. 8 on the ballot is animus. Why people opposed Prop. 8 is not relevant.”

The full text of Prop. 8 is: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Proponents’ motivation wasn’t on the ballot, and isn’t relevant either. But if they’re allowed to go there, Prop. 8 opponents should be forced to cough up info about what’s motivating them. What are they afraid of?

___________________________________________

Just one of surely many examples of nanny-state nonsense in ObamaCare:

A requirement tucked into the nation’s massive health care bill will make calorie counts impossible for thousands of restaurants to hide and difficult for consumers to ignore. More than 200,000 fast food and other chain restaurants will have to include calorie counts on menus, menu boards and even drive-throughs.

I daresay most of our parents always “hid” the calorie count of the delicious meals they served us when we were growing up. How did we ever survive?

If enough consumers cared about this, restaurants would be doing this voluntarily. In fact, many already do this to highlight lo-cal items for the calorie-conscious. But they don’t do it for every freaking item on the menu — and they shouldn’t have to.

If you think these nannies/ninnies are satisfied merely telling us the calorie counts in the things we eat so we might more informed decisions, look at New York City and LA, and think again. Ultimately, it ends up being an excuse to try to raise taxes.

___________________________________________

Lightning Links:

• Hannah Giles at BigJournalism.com — “Farewell To the Legalized, Government-Supported Mafia Known as ACORN.”
• Patterico is there too (“Brad Friedman’s Lies Fail to Save ACORN”) — “For once, the liars aren’t winning.”
• And yet another BigJourno jewel, from Michael Walsh: “Congratulations, Sen. John McCain (R–Media) — You Made This Day Possible” (i.e., ObamaCare) with that “honorable campaign.”
• Canada is not a truly free country. This proves it.

From Lincoln, Nebraska:

Mar 23, 2010 / 09:32 am

Last week, Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, Father Christopher Kubat, the diocesan director of Catholic Social Services (CSS), Sister Jacqueline Darner, M.S., and others gathered to turn the first shovelfuls of dirt that will make way for the new 24-unit St. Gianna Women’s Homes. The secure apartment building will be comprised of 24 one-, two- and three-bedroom units that will house women and children escaping domestic abuse and the pressure to abort.

It will also include a chapel, daycare center, kitchen, exercise facility, commons area, and a small three-bedroom cloister for the Marian Sisters who will serve as caseworkers for the women living in the facility.

Father Kubat noted that the project was funded through the CSS “Expanding the Works of Mercy Campaign.” That campaign sought to raise $5 million for a number of CSS projects, and recently met that goal.

One purpose of the campaign was to consolidate Lincoln social services in a downtown location, which required purchasing and renovating its current building at 23rd and O streets. Another was to open a permanent gift and thrift store – St. Isidore – in Imperial, which opened March 8.

The campaign also acquired monies to start an endowment so that all CSS programs would have an ongoing supply of funds.

However, it was the St. Gianna Women’s Homes project that inspired the generosity of many throughout the diocese.

“Response to this project was just tremendous across the diocese,” Father Kubat said. “This is the one element that struck the heartstrings of most people.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Doing work the Associated Press refused to do — or more specifically, providing context the AP refused to provide — Sweetness & Light’s indefatigable blogger Steve Gilbert gave readers the back story behind the order by U.S. District Judge James Robertson (pictured at right) to release Guantanamo Bay detainee Mohamedou Ould Salahi, who is said to have, in the words of the wire service’s Pete Yost, “provided advice to three of the Sept. 11 hijackers.”

First, here’s what little Yost deigned to divulge:

A judge has ordered the release of a Guantanamo Bay detainee described in the 9/11 commission report as a significant al-Qaida operative who provided advice to three of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

The ruling in favor of detainee Mohamedou Ould Salahi was disclosed Monday in a two-sentence court entry.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson will issue a written decision at a later date explaining his reasons for granting the detainee’s petition. The detainee remains at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the Obama administration could appeal Robertson’s order. Even if the administration were to decide against appealing, Salahi would remain at Guantanamo until U.S. diplomats found a nation willing to accept him.

The 9/11 Commission report says Salahi was known to U.S. and German intelligence a decade ago and living in Germany when he gave instructions to four men about how to reach Afghanistan to train for jihad.

Three of the men later became Sept. 11 hijackers — Mohamed Atta, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al Shehhi.

Yost wastes his final three paragraphs with smell test-failing verbiage about former military prosecutor Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, who has said that he refused to press charges against Salahi because he had been subjected to “torture.”

In 205 words, followed by a blistering final dozen, Gilbert succinctly states what Yost failed to reveal when given a total of over 400 to work with (links are in original):

For instance, Judge Robertson threw out Ken Starr’s charges against the Clintons’ bag man and fall guy, Web Hubbell. And he has protected many other Clinton cronies over the years.

More recently, Mr. Robertson blocked the release of First Lady Hillary Clinton’s phone records from FOIA requests.

More to the point, however, Mr. Robertson is also the same heroic judge who resigned from the FISA court in a self-righteous hissy fit protest.

He also summarily released 30 other terrorists detainees last November.

More importantly perhaps, Judge Robertson is the also same legal hero who begat the Hamdan ruling, when he demanded that foreign combats should receive habeas corpus rights.

But why should the AP bother its readers with such meaningless details?

Gilbert also has posts on the Communist Party USA’s various pronouncements praising the passage of ObamaCare (“a giant first step”) and concomitant government takeover of the entire student loan industry. You can rest assured that the AP won’t take any interest in these “endorsements.”

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Lightly-commented Lightning:

• Jeff Durstewitz at Pajamas Media — “The president seemed to change before our eyes into a kind of “this is for your own good” authoritarian.” Many of us could tell that he’s always been a wannabe authoritarian; you could see whiffs of it here, here, and here in 2008. All you had to do was see who he hung with and what he wrote and said. As if that wasn’t convincing enough, just look what he and his people started doing or trying once they had some power.
• Here’s an authoritarian reaction, as “Google Ends Self-Censorship, Defies China Government” — “The U.S. government said it was ‘disappointed’ Google and China failed to reach a compromise.” It’s more evidence that to this administration, freedom’s just another word …
• Jennifer Rubin — “How Grown-Ups Handle Middle East Diplomacy.” By “grown-ups,’ she’s referring to people not currently occupying the White House and State Department. Rubin seems uncomfortable with the idea that the government’s temper tantrum over Israeli settlements might be “an intentional contrivance to impress the Obami’s Palestinian friends.” I’m not; here’s one reason among many why.
• Thomas Sowell — “With politicians now having access to our most confidential records and having the power of granting or withholding medical care needed to sustain ourselves or our loved ones, how many people will be bold enough to criticize our public servants, who will in fact have become our public masters?” There was a time when, in criticizing many on the left, you could describe them, as Ronald Reagan did, as “well-meaning.” Concerning those in power who among many other things voted in the beginnings of a police state by supporting ObamaCare, one can no longer credibly say that.
• Walter Williams — “If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it’s that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long.” An Eric Clapton song comes to mind.
• William McGurn in today’s Wall Street Journal — “Pro-life Democrats, R.I.P.; Bart Stupak’s vote for the health bill shows that in the end you can’t count on prolife Democrats.” It wouldn’t surprise me to see the establishment press start pulling out their hated term (“pro-life”) for on-the-ropes Democrats who can no longer defensibly be described as such.
• For the moment, the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy that began in roughly June of 2008 is also the “Mrs. 11%, Mr. 46%, and Mr. 8%” economy.

Comment-free lightning:

• Investor’s Business Daily — “Enacting a Lie.”
• At NewsBusters — “(Far-Left Nation Magazine’s) Hayes: Pelosi ‘Completely Disingenuous’ In Claiming ObamaCare Hits Insurance Companies“
• At Hot Air — “ACORN Closing Its Doors.” Home-page sub-headline: “Pimps, Democrats hardest hit.”

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has announced that it is disbanding.

Though the hard-leftists that formed or were running it are likely to show up in some other venue and perhaps in a successor organization down the road (Update: or perhaps burrow themselves into the government, as NewsBusters commenter “Hunter 12″ suggests), this is a moment to savor. Two twenty-somethings, acting entirely on their own, assisted later by a skilled mentor who knew the value of their work and how to maximize the mileage to be gained from it, brought down what had turned into a pretentious, intimidating, fraud-riddled wing of the Democratic Party’s get out the vote effort. All that remains — frankly more than should be allowed to remain — is ACORN Housing Corporation. According to USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, whose related article is behind its subscription wall, is saying that ACORN Housing “has a separate budget and board.”

In one last act of sympathy, most of the press is giving ACORN’s leaders a chance to vent without rebuttal and in some cases supplying their own sour grapes. Here are some examples:

(The Associated Press, in an article written by Michael Tarm)

“It’s really declining revenue in the face of a series of attacks from partisan operatives and right-wing activists that have taken away our ability to raise the resources we need,” ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan said.

… “ACORN has faced a series of well-orchestrated, relentless, well-funded right wing attacks that are unprecedented since the McCarthy era,” … (ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis) said. “The videos were a manufactured, sensational story that led to rush to judgment and an unconstitutional act by Congress.”

ACORN’s board decided to close remaining state affiliates and field offices by April 1 because of falling revenues, with some national operations will continue operating for at least several weeks before shutting for good, Whelan said Monday.

(The New York Times, in an article by Ian Urbina)

“For Acorn as a national organization, our vindication on the facts doesn’t necessarily pay the bills,” Bertha Lewis, the chief executive of Acorn, said in a statement.

(Ben Smith, in his own final sentence in a post at the Politico)

The collapse of the national group, though, reflects the impact of a conservative assault that never prompted any prosecutions.

(Reuters, in an unbylined item)

“ACORN has faced a series of well-orchestrated, relentless, well-funded right wing attacks,” the group said in a statement announcing the moves.

A journey into the fever swamps brings forth Jason Leopold at Alternet (Remember? Unless it’s an incredible coincidence that there’s another unhinged guy by the same name, this is the Jason Leopold who just knew that Karl Rove’s indictment in the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame affair was a done deal), soooo predictably playing the race card:

The (O’Keefe-Giles) video was trumpeted by Fox News and other right-wing news outlets, starting a stampede in the mainstream press and in Congress, where a majority of panicked Democrats joined the herd in approving legislation to strip ACORN of federal funds. The stampede, which trampled ACORN and its mostly black and Hispanic organizing staff, soon pulled in President Barack Obama, who often has touted his work as a community organizer in his youth.

One exception to the failure to get reaction from sensible, non-leftist people is at CNN:

ACORN’s announcement was welcomed by Matthew Vadum, senior editor of the Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank based in Washington. “I won’t be shedding any tears,” said Vadum, who said he has been studying the organization for years and written extensively on the organization. “ACORN is a thoroughly corrupt organization that abuses taxpayer dollars and breaks the law at every opportunity. To suggest that it was set up is laughable.”

He added in a telephone interview, “For ACORN to claim that it’s a victim of McCarthyism, as I’ve seen CEO Bertha Lewis do repeatedly, doesn’t even pass the laugh test. It can’t be taken seriously.”

ACORN’s McCarthyism whines don’t pass the laugh test. Oh, but its demise does bring on a smile, along with a prayer of gratitude for the courage and brilliance of James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Andrew Breitbart..

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Sometimes, certain claims made by establishment media reporters or people who are quoted don’t pass the smell test. Then, when you dig in, to borrow a phrase from Michael Savage, the stench makes you clench.

Such is the case with a front-page story (“Number of People Living on New York Streets Soars”) that went up online at the New York Times late Friday, and appeared in its Saturday print edition.

Reporter Julie Bosman opened fairly enough with this paragraph:

The Bloomberg administration said Friday that the number of people living on New York’s streets and subways soared 34 percent in a year, signaling a setback in one of the city’s most intractable problems.

The New York City Department of Homeless Services’ Homeless Outreach Population Estimate (HOME) is conducted in late January each year. It’s almost as if Bosman and/or her editors thought that this opening statement was too strong and needed some seasoning; after all, you-know-who’s administration in Washington was overseeing the economy during the entire period in question. So take a look at how Bosman, with the help of a “clever” homeless services official, tried to massage the results in the next five paragraphs, and then be amazed at how reality differs:

Appearing both startled and dismayed by the sharp increase, a year after a significant drop, administration officials attributed it to the recession, noting that city shelters for families and single adults had been inundated.

Robert V. Hess, the commissioner of homeless services, said in a subdued news conference that the city began feeling the increase in its vast shelter system more than two years ago. “And now we’re seeing the devastating effect of this unprecedented poor economy on our streets as well,” Mr. Hess said.

The city’s annual tally indicated an additional 783 homeless people on the streets and in the subway system, for a total of 3,111, up from 2,328 last year. That is in addition to almost 38,000 people living in shelters, which is near the city’s high.

The count came from an annual census of homeless people that is typically conducted on a cold January night, when more than 2,500 volunteers walk the streets and subway system between midnight and 4 a.m. to search for and identify the homeless. It took place this year on Jan. 25.

Bosman described this year’s on-the-streets homeless population increase of 783, or 34% as “sharp.” Guess what the decrease from January 2008 to January 2009 described only as “significant” was? Try almost 1,000 (graph is at the fourth slide of the January 2010 HOME report, a PDF accessible at this “Statistics and Reports” page):

What’s more, from January 2005 to January 2009, the final four years of the eeeeevil George Bush, the on-the-streets homeless count dropped by 47%.

Hess’s ignorant (or deliberate?) “pin the blame on the recession; I can just feel it” argument is beyond pathetic, and Bosman did readers a disservice by including it. While she did get around to noting 2008′s 30% drop in her second-last paragraph, she never told us how many people (978) that represented, or that it was a bigger drop than 2009′s gain.

Not that it constitutes any kind of proof, but it’s more than a little interesting that the “on the streets” homeless population in Gotham plunged so steeply in 2008, when we were supposedly in a recession during the entire year (the recession as normal people define it didn’t start until the third quarter of 2008).

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

At the Corner, from Objectively Unfit and hopefully soon to be marginalized Mitt Romney (HT Alo at Brain Shavings):

I see there will be “no apology” from the godfather of RomneyCare for creating the prototype for ObamaCare.

Romney should know about “usurpation of the legislative process”; he’s the expert on subverting constitutions and violating his oath of office.

A Romney ascendancy to the presidency guarantees that the country will make peace with statism and fail to stop it.

That this blog has not been particularly Sean Hannity-friendly is not exactly a secret (also see the last item at this link).

That said, I’m not about to jump on board with Debbie Schlussel’s explosive charges (follow-up post here) about the Freedom Alliance and Hannity’s association with it — yet.

My quiet reaxes to that relationship and the growth of the Freedom Concerts over the past several years have been:

1. Hannity and/or his peeps had better be checking up on these guys.
2. They’re going through a lot of money; I hope they’re also netting a lot in the process.
3. I hope they’re accurately communicating what they’re doing.
4. I hope Sean isn’t personally benefitting from this (other than positive feedback by association, to which he’s entitled), and avoiding any hints that he might be.
5. I hope the entertainers are deeply discounting their normal appearance fees (not directly addressed in this post).

Based on Schlussel’s work, the answers to my long-held concerns so far appear to be:

1. It seems doubtful.
2. They’re not netting as much as they want you to think they are, and they may be clearing less than such an operation should be.
3. Not really, and not well.
4. Hard to tell, based on evidence presented.
5. Needs to be investigated.

Debbie is way off on a couple of points.

First, her claim that “a charity is considered reputable if no more than 25% of its revenue goes to expenses and no less than 75% of it goes to the intended charity recipients” doesn’t fly for an operation like this one. Just doing the math on one concert will demonstrate this.

The Cincinnati venue has a capacity of about 9,000. If 8,800 people (after considering comps) pay an average price of about $85 per ticket (estimated based on this price structure and this seating layout), that’s a rounded gross of $750,000.

You’re not going to get the costs of pulling off a massive project like this for less than $190,000 (25% of $750,000, rounded). You’ll be lucky if you can get it done for double that, and a 50% or even 70% result would by no means be “disreputable” — and that’s before paying the day-to-day costs of running the charity. Doing concerts IS a high-cost method for raising money, and we could have a separate debate for days about whether this is how to go about accomplishing a given charitable objective. But it’s a method that’s used all the time, and FA should not be presumptively faulted for employing it.

The 2006 tax return to which Debbie refers shows that FA’s expense ratio for that year was 65.3% ($7.065 million divided by $10.823 million). Of the $3.758 million left over, the vast majority of it (over $3.5 mil) went into investments set aside and intended to grow for when intended beneficiaries go to college. Additionally, the return shows just under $400,000 disbursed to beneficiaries that year, reducing the true operating expense ratio to 61.6%.

Those are NOT presumptively awful results, but they don’t absolve FA from being frivolous with its funds (there are indeed major amounts going to “consultants,” which may or may not be appropriate in the circumstances) or being parsimonious in its benefit-granting decisions. I consider both items at this point to be serious charges backed by incomplete evidence.

Second, Debbie hurts herself with her ad hominems against some of Sean’s defenders. You don’t need to do that to make your point, Deb, and it turns off people who might otherwise be receptive to your arguments (potentially including me).

But the Alliance’s response has been far from satisfactory. In fact, given the opportunity, FA seems to have deliberately avoided telling people about their 60%-plus expense ratio. Hannity’s defenders are mostly using the “Sean’s a good guy, this can’t be true” line, which is understandable, since they aren’t involved in FA’s operations, and I don’t necessarily fault them for that — yet. *

Schlussel has promised more. She needs to deliver, because what she has given us so far, while compelling, is not a comprehensively convincing indictment.

But Hannity and FA bear a heavier burden, regardless of whether Schlussel firms up her case. I will be firmly in the FA doubters’ camp if they can’t or won’t produce more than a “we’re really good guys, just ask us and our buds” defense. And I wonder how many Freedom Concert attendees would be impressed by a statement accompanying their tickets that “less than 40% of the cost of this ticket will go to program beneficiaries and investments made on their behalf.”

* – To be clear, I DO fault some of Deb’s attackers for going over the top themselves in their criticisms of Schlussel.

Lightly-commented Lightning:

• Rick Moran at PJM, on Sunday’s statist health care tragedy — “This was rammed down the throats of the American people with as much cynicism, trickery, deliberate obfuscation, and budgetary tomfoolery as has ever been seen for a major piece of legislation in the history of the republic.” I can’t think of one that was worse.
• Following up on this item from March 15 (“U.S., U.K. Move Closer to Losing Rating, Moody’s Says”; HT BigJournalism), there’s this (“Obama Pays More Than Buffett as U.S. Risks AAA Rating”). This is best seen as bond investors giving an initial “F” grade to the idea that statist health care will reduce deficits without negatively impacting economic growth. Also note how Bloomberg resisted putting “AAA” in its week-ago headline.
• From a month ago, in case you missed it, via Mark Steyn — “The Biggest Abdication By The West Since The 1930s.” Money quote for the “I blame Bush” crowd: “In Iran, the self-declared nuclear regime announced that it was now enriching uranium to 20%. When President Obama took office, the Islamic Republic had 400 centrifuges enriching up to 3.5%. A year later, it has 8,000 centrifuges enriching to 20%.” The mullahs know they have nothing to fear from this guy. The administration’s initial pathetic response (see Update 5 at link), days-later disgraceful reaction (first item at link) and ongoing non-support of those attempting to overthrow the mullahs has proven it.
• From last Wednesday, via Jacob Sullum at Reason (“Government-Subsidized Job Creation Preservation Elimination in Massachusetts”) — “A Boston Globe investigation finds that Massachusetts’ Economic Development Incentive Program, which during the last 16 years (13 of them under RINO governors — Ed.) has dispensed hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local tax breaks to businesses that promised to create jobs, often has little or nothing to show for its efforts.” This is why states should be making their business and tax climates hospitable to every business, not handing out money and tax breaks. Also, it should be noted that in general the kind of businesses willing to expend precious management time playing the bureaucratic grant-break game aren’t the ones likely to generate explosive job growth.
• A likely example of the previous point, from last Thursday’s Dayton Daily News – “Arcade owner wants $5 million commitment from Dayton.” Translation: “This project isn’t financially justified unless it’s heavily subsidized.”
• In the WashTimes — “U.S. Post exec taps former associate for no-bid pact.” Despite appearances, I would suggest that this is probably an above-board deal. A similar arrangement during the Bush administration would have brought forth howls of faux outrage over “corruption.” The statist health care plan’s various bribes and other forms of corruption built into the bill probably amount to as much in a day — heck, maybe in an hour — as this situation involves in total ($4 million).
• Hope and Change Update, at the New York Times: “Number of People Living on New York Streets Soars.” The “Blame Bush” subtext of the story, which sadly includes a homeless agency official who must know better, is disgraceful. The facts are, according to the NYC Department of Homeless Services January 2009 report, that the “living on the streets” population dropped 30% in 2008. In 2009, it soared by 34% (links to the relevant PDFs are at this page). Yet “Robert V. Hess, the commissioner of homeless services, said in a subdued news conference that the city began feeling the increase in its vast shelter system more than two years ago.” Horse manure.
• From Ambrose Evans Prichard at the UK Telegraph eight days ago — “Is China’s Politburo spoiling for a showdown with America?” If so, we have never been in a weaker position for one.

Comment-free Lightning:

• From six weeks ago, coming from the “Your Tax Dollars Down the Drain” Dept.: “US Taxpayers Give GMAC a $17.3BB Neg-Am Loan.”
• From the “Betcha Didn’t Hear About It; I Wonder Why” file, in Philadelphia — “(More Than Two Dozen) Frozen Fetuses Found During Doctor’s Office Raid.”
• From the “Gee, Some of Us Saw This Coming in Campaign 2008″ Dept.– “Was Obama’s confrontation with Israel premeditated?”
• WSJ Quote of the Day — “So this hour of liberal political victory is a good time to adapt the ‘Pottery Barn’ rule that Colin Powell once invoked on Iraq: You break it, you own it.”
• New word of the day: Misprision, relevant to this American Spectator piece — “Specter Opens Door on White House Felonies.”

Reacting to the Stupak sellout:

Stupak: the Sanctity of Life is Important to Us, Which is Why We Will Slash Care for Old People and Further Enslave Children to Massive Deficits

… The bill uses every account gimmick known to man — including slashing Medicare payments (really humane, Bart) and double-counting the cuts — and invents a few new ones to create a brand new entitlement when the country is already in dire financial straits.

This bill fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the people; and it does so in a despicably evil way …

Congratulations, Bart Stupak and your so-called “Pro-Life” Democrat Caucus, you’ve sentenced the unborn generations of this country to misery, poverty and economic ruin.

Not yet, but on the verge … with a possible Plan B (also here).

Stupak’s cave-in is best seen as the final result of the abject failure of the pro-life movement to make the arguments put forth here last summer.

______________________________________________________

UPDATE: Further proof that there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat — because when it matters, human life is not as important as the advancement of statism. That is in essence what Stupak said last year (HT HyScience) –

UPDATE, 8:35 p.m: Phyllis Schlafly –

“This vote will expose the myth of the ‘pro-life Democrat.’ With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same.”

“Someone” made the point that there are no pro-life Democrats as long as they support a the most radically anti-life president ever as their standard-bearer back in October 2008.

UPDATE, 8:55 p.m.: Received in a GOP Leader e-mail –

• “If the bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise.” (National Right to Life Committee statement)
• “An Executive Order cannot prevent insurance companies that pay for abortions from participating in the exchanges. Further, Executive Orders can be undone or modified as quickly as they are created. This is a blatant attempt to subvert democracy and should be quickly quashed.” (Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life Action)
• “If the Obama Administration continued to falsely believe the Senate bill had no problem on the issue of funding abortion and funding health plans that include abortion, he certainly would not put forth the idea of an EO. Because of an EO would give no protections to the unborn when it comes to funding for abortion in the Senate and Reconciliation bills, FRCAction will still score votes on both in our scorecard for the Second Session of the 111th Congress.” (FRC letter to members of Congress)

UPDATE, 9:05 p.m.: Via Fox (HT Hot Air) –

Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the group was revoking its “Defender of Life” award to Stupak, which was to be awarded at its Wednesday night gala.

“We were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform. We will no longer be doing so,” Dannenfelser said. “Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this health care bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.’”

UPDATE, 10:50 p.m.: Plan C.

UPDATE, 10:55 p.m.: Does anyone think that Mike “ObamaCare Is Stopped Because of My Gang of 14” DeWine would care to comment?

UPDATE, 11:00 p.m.: 219-212 (roll call link coming tomorrow). Stupak’s sell-out made the difference. Current Drudge headline: “Day Which Will Live in Infirmary.”

UPDATE, 8:00 a.m., March 22: Roll call is here. Driehaus sold out with Stupak.

Read: