Rules are here. Possible comment fodder follows. Other topics are also fair game.

__________________________________________

At Fox News: “Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov’t Help Hide Climate Data?” The Occam’s Razor answer is “yes”; otherwise, why would the government be on a manhunt (HT JWF) to identify the Climategate II leaker when it appears to have done no such think in the wake of the original Climategate two years ago?

__________________________________________

At CNN, from the country Barack Obama so frequently praises — “‘Batman’ star Bale punched, stopped from visiting blind Chinese activist.”

__________________________________________

I don’t know if this is what ultimately got through Congress yesterday to avoid a government shutdown, but it gives you an idea of how little headway is being made against the deficit monster — “Combining the omnibus bill and other spending bills already passed, total discretionary funding for 2012 will be $95 billion less than 2011 levels.” Despite the wording, I have a hard time believing that these are real year-over-year cuts instead of reductions of projected spending with increases previously built-in. Even if they are, it’s way less than a 3% decrease in overall spending, which has running along at $3.6 trillion per year, and way below about 8% of the deficits run during each of the past three years.

__________________________________________

Speaking of which, as a friend and I were discussing last night, whats’s with the two-month payroll tax-cut extension? Even if you believe in the collapsed Keynesian theory of stimulus, what employer is going to hire people based on a theoretical increase in consumer spending which ends on February 28, 2012?

__________________________________________

For those who believe that Hillary Clinton would automatically be such a great alternative to Barack Obama (“Lafftery Detained by State Department”) — “Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) president Andrea Lafferty was targeted and detained by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security personnel this Wednesday during the closing event capping the three day closed-door conference advancing the implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18. … When asked why she was being removed from the reception hall, the security detail announced that a phone call had identified Lafferty as a ‘security threat’ to Secretary Clinton.”

__________________________________________

Report from Obamaland – “While the jobless rate in other Midwest states has stayed relatively flat over the past year, Illinois’s unemployment rate has risen to 10.1% from 9%. Most of the lost jobs are in information technology and financial services, which are some of the easiest to move. … The state’s bond debt has soared to $30 billion from $9.2 billion in 2002, when Democrats seized control of both the governorship and statehouse.”

Meanwhile, Ohio’s unemployment rate dropped to 8.5% in November from 9.6% a year earlier.

Illinois chose to steeply raise corporate and individual income taxes, and has almost completely refused to address its out-of-control public-sector labor cost structure. Ohio Governor John Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly erased what had been a projected $8 billion deficit without tax increases. Guess whose economy has performed better?

Thanks to the defeat of Issue 2/SB5, whether the Buckeye State’s improvement will continue is unclear. Even if it does, it won’t be as good as it could be until the state’s similar problems in the public sector get fixed.

From Reno, Nevada (HT Daryn Kagan):

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

The Reno airport baggage handler who was fired after she refused to transport an apparently mistreated dog may be heading back to the cargo area.

Lynn Jones told The Associated Press on Monday that she was loading baggage at the Reno-Tahoe International Airport last month when she saw a skinny dog covered with sores in a pet carrier tagged for a flight to Texas.

“The transportation safety authority officers couldn’t even get the dog to stand up to be X-rayed,” she told the Reno Gazette-Journal.

“Everyone who saw it, the TSA people, the airport police officers, the girls at the ticket counter, was concerned. The dog was so weak and torn up. It didn’t look like it could survive the flight.”

Her supervisor then allegedly insisted that the dog’s condition was none of her business and told her to load it on. Eventually airport police got involved and the dog was picked up by animal welfare workers.

Jones, however, was fired and seemed bound for the ranks of unemployed until her story made international news.

“(My supervisor) kept yelling, ‘That’s it. You’re done. You are out of here. Go home,’” Jones told the newspaper. “I left.”

In a statement posted on the private baggage handling company Airport Terminal Services’ website on Tuesday, the company’s president, Sally Leible, said she offered the 56-year-old Jones her job back with back pay and an apology.

“We applaud Ms. Lynn Jones’ courage to report the unfavorable condition of the animal she encountered, and we encourage others to be as vigilant as she was,” she said in the statement.

The company will also make a three-year financial contribution to the Nevada Humane Society to educate people about animal mistreatment, she added.

Leible told the AP that her bighearted employee was “trying to protect the dog and I think she was courageous in doing that.”

“I really, truly hope she will come back,” she added. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

This story indicates that Jones was rehired.

Part 2 — What Romney Really Did
Part 3 — Romney Did It Because He Promised He Would

________________________

I’ve been more than a little frustrated by my inability due to time and make-a-living constraints to beat what should be the deadest of dead horses yet one more time.

That horse is still out there, the equine equivalent of Bernie in the “Weekend at Bernie’s” movies, pretending to have life, propped up recently by Maggie Gallagher, who should (and I believe does) know better, for years by Ann Coulter (probably ditto, except that this particular thin blonde can have a mighty thick head about certain things), and continuously by so many others.

The issue is the story of how same-sex marriage came to be in the once great state of Massachusetts. As Gallagher completely incorrectly sees it, Mitt Romney is one of the story’s heroes:

(In her tease at the Corner) … I cannot stand the injustice with which the idea that Romney is somehow responsible for gay marriage in Massachussetts has taken hold.

(in her November 30 column) … some social conservatives in Iowa appear to have gotten the idea that Mitt Romney is somehow responsible for gay marriage in Massachusetts.

I don’t mind anyone criticizing Romney for the things he has done. But this particular attack is grotesquely unfair. I know. I was there.

In the summer of 2003, when I learned the Massachusetts courts were likely to make gay marriage a reality, I quit my job and started up a think tank to work full time on the marriage issue. I traveled to Massachusetts multiple times to confer with local leaders, testify before the legislature, address grassroots gatherings, meet with policymakers.

Mitt Romney didn’t just oppose court-ordered same-sex marriage with words, he fought hard, including behind the scenes.

When the people of Massachusetts mobilized the most massive signature-gathering operation in the state’s history in support of a marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, Romney supported the effort.

… If Romney had had another term as governor, the people of Massachusetts would have won the right to overrule their court and reverse gay marriage, as the people of California did.

Stop. Right. There.

Ms. Gallagher just skipped a nearly two-year time period, namely from the November 18, 2003 Goodridge “ruling” through summer 2005 (the beginning of the constitutional amendment effort, which dragged on until June 2007, when a fundamentally dishonest and cowardly Bay State legislature failed to follow through with a call for the required Constitutional convention it had approved just five months earlier), as if it didn’t exist. In the rest of her column, she never filled in that critical time gap.

The issues are what the Goodridge decision really said (as we’ll see shortly, it was NOT an “order”), and what Mitt Romney did in the aftermath of that ruling during Maggie Gallagher’s “forgotten” period.

I’ll let Rick Santorum, speaking at last night’s debate in Iowa, supply most of the answers (I’ll fill in the holes in a subsequent part). Watch Romney’s body language and facial expression deteriorate (e.g., telltale blinking) as Santorum exposes the truth (yes, I can also tell that the former Pennsylvania senator was justifiably a bit nervous as he went through his presentation, and was sort of congratulating himself as he wrapped it up):

Transcript (“uhs” and other distractions not included):

Chris Wallace (in mid-sentence): … Are you persuaded that Governor Romney has made these changes, or what he says in some cases are not changes, based on principle and not political expedience?

Santorum: Governor Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, was faced with a Supreme Court decision that said that same-sex marriage, uh, traditional marriage was unconstitutional.

In that court decision, the court said that they did not have the power to change the law in Massachusetts and rule same-sex marriage legal. Why? Because in the Massachusetts Constitution it states specifically that only the Governor and the Legislature can change marriage laws.

Governor Romney … the Court then gave the Legislature a certain amount of time to change the law. They did not.

So Governor Romney was faced with a choice. Go along with the Court or go along with the Constitution and the statute. He chose the Court, and ordered people to issue gay-marriage licenses and went beyond that. He personally, as Governor, issued gay marriage licenses.

(Romney chuckles in the background)

I don’t think that is an accurate representation of his position of saying “tolerance” versus substantively changing the laws.

I’ve had a strong, consistent track record of standing up for the values of this country, not discriminating — I had a no-discrimination policy in my office. But we’re not talking about discrimination, we’re talking about changing the basic values of our country.

Wallace: Governor Romney, 30 seconds to respond, sir.

(Light audience applause)

Romney: That’s a very novel understanding of what our Supreme Court in Massachusetts did. I think everybody in Massachusetts, and the legal profession in Massachusetts, and my legal counsel. I indicated that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts determined that under our Constitution, same-sex marriage was required. And the idea somehow that was up to me to make a choice as to whether we had it or not was a little unusual.

We got together with our legislature, and I fought, leading an effort to put in place a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to overturn the court’s decision, to make marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

This is something I battled in the year I had after their decision. I fought it every way I possibly could. I went to Washington, testifying in favor of a federal amendment to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

Let me tell ya, I want to make it very clear. I have been a champion of protecting traditional marriage. That continues to be my view. If I somehow missed somewhere, I’m happy to get corrected. But that is something I feel very deeply.

For the record: The period between the Goodridge decision and the end of Romney’s term as Governor was three years and 1-1/2 months. Romney appears to have the same time-gap problem Maggie Gallagher exhibited in her column.

According to Steve Deace, “Romney issued a challenge that Santorum wouldn’t be able to find any respected legal authorities that would agree with his characterization of Romney’s culpability.”

Big mistake, Mitt.

Actually, you don’t need “respected legal authorities” in matters such as these. All you need to do is be able to read the plain English in the Massachusetts Constitution and the Goodridge ruling. Romney has not treated non-lawyerly others who have challenged him on this issue as (relatively) politely as he treated Santorum last night. In early 2008, in response to a phone call into WRKO in Boston from conservative commentator and author Gregg Jackson, Romney called Jackson “delusional,” further claiming that “Everybody in the entire nation knows that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made same-sex marriage legal and that I fought it in every single way I could.”

No we don’t Mitt — and neither do many “respected (and correct) legal authorities,” ones you told a national audience will make you “happy to be corrected.” I will cite them tomorrow morning in Part 2.

For now, let me make sure to thank Rick Santorum for having the courage to tell Emperor Mitt that on the same-sex marriage issue he has no clothes, nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide. In Part 3, I’ll remind readers that Romney’s actions in the wake of the Goodridge ruling were indisputably planned in advance, and that no less than the New York Times inadvertently and unwittingly let that cat out of the bag. Romney’s actions were also cravenly unconstitutional and violated his gubernatorial oath of office, thereby, as I have been stating for four years, making him inarguably and objectively unfit to be president of the United States.

Oh, and a final note to Maggie Gallagher, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, et al — Mitt Romney is not only responsible for gay marriage in Massachusetts; his cowardice is the most significant contributing factor to why it has been adopted in several other states.

I don’t want readers to lose sight of the excellent stats Heritage’s Robert Rector uses to show that “poverty” in America is not the kind of deprivation seen in so many parts of the world.

That said, the serious decline in the financial situation of millions of Americans should not be ignored, as described in the following Associated Press item (HT Rush Limbaugh):

Census: 1 in 2 persons is poor or low-income

Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low-income.

The latest census data depict a middle class that’s shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government’s safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.

“Safety-net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too ‘rich’ to qualify,” said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.

Of course, being an AP item, the wire service’s Hope Yen comes up with the wrong answers, particularly citing the effect of potential Congressional “cuts” (as if there are any of significance, and as if the money spent hasn’t skyrocketed during the past 3-4 years), and ignoring the job-killing impact of huge, ongoing deficits and regulatory overkill. I would suggest that the “safety net” is hardly fraying; all too often, it’s a hammock (there’s a reason the term “‘hood rich,” a condition describing how certain people of all races and backgrounds game the system to attain and maintain a lower middle-class lifestyle at everyone else’s expense, exists).

The larger point is that what I have been calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy since the middle of 2008 has taken a huge toll on private-sector working people and less senior members of the non-federal public sector. As I noted in this morning’s column at PJ Media, it is and continues to be “almost entirely the creation of Democratic Party policies and Democrat apparatchiks’ backroom scheming.”

It’s here.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Sunday (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

… Christopher Hitchens.

He was a rare man indeed, a leftist with whom I often disagreed, but who understood, unlike far too many of his fellow journalists and pundits, that societies and cultures must defend themselves, and that corruption and malfeasance must be exposed, whether those involved are people with whom you agree or disagree.

And yes, it is ironic, as Dana Loesch notes at BigJournalism.com, that Hitch’s book about the Clintons (“No One Left To Lie To“) turned a lot of liberals into conservatives.

At PJ Media, Richard Fernandez, Ed Driscoll, and Michael Totten have more. Others: Michelle Malkin, Allah at Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, Neo-Neocon.

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.

__________________________________________

From Montevideo, Uruguay:

Dec 14, 2011 / 08:01 pm (CNA).- The bishops of Uruguay have voiced support for a married couple who testified that the country is under pressure from international organizations to legalize abortion.

The couple’s testimony was criticized by the country’s media outlets.

In its bi-monthly bulletin, the Archdiocese of Montevideo published the entire testimony given by Victor Guerrero and Gabriela Lopez of the bishops’ Committee on Family and Human Life “so that our readers can draw their own conclusions.”

The bulletin, distributed in all the parishes of Montevideo, reaffirmed the Church’s position on a proposal that would legalize abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy.

Guerreo and Lopez gave their testimony on Nov. 29 and denounced the measure as a ploy by international organizations to pressure Uruguay to accept abortion. “Unfortunately these kinds of measures do not stem from the initiative of local legislators but rather from strategies internationally promoted by institutions that seek to deceive the people and their legislators,” they said.

“Behind this pressure are international foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation and many others … that see world population growth as a security issue,” Lopez said.

The bishops of Uruguay were dissatisfied by the media coverage of the couple’s testimony and therefore decided to publish their remarks in their entirety. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

In February, yours truly sensed a misstatement of reality on the part of Associated Press reporter Scott Bauer in his description of the budget repair law the Wisconsin Legislature was then considering. At the beginning of his report, Bauer wrote that the law would “end a half-century of collectively bargaining,” but later wrote that “unions could still represent workers” (That doesn’t exactly signal an “end,” does it?). In several other subsequent reports (examples here and here), Bauer insisted on incorrectly describing the law as “ending” or “eliminating” collective bargaining. It does neither.

Tonight, in reporting on the progress of the Badger State effort to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker, Bauer slightly rephrased his false claim, glossed over the current controversy over validation of petitioners’ names and registration status, again contradicted himself, and made little effort at hiding his overt partisanship (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Wis. group nears mark for forcing recall election

Organizers of an effort to kick Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker out of office said Thursday they’ve collected nearly enough signatures to force a recall election, though their financial backing is far behind the Republican governor’s fundraising.

The state Democratic Party, unions and disgruntled citizens started organizing amid growing anger over Walker’s polarizing measure approved in March that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for public workers. Now, the United Wisconsin coalition reports that it collected 507,533 in 28 days; the group must submit 540,208 signatures by Jan. 17 to force the recall.

“The people of Wisconsin have said enough is enough,” Democratic Party chairman Mike Tate said.

But the coalition and Democrats have raised roughly $1.4 million since July, compared to the $5.1 million that Walker raised over the same period, according to reports from both sides Thursday.

… Republicans also pushed back with a lawsuit Thursday challenging the state board that oversees elections in Wisconsin, saying it doesn’t do enough to make sure the names on recall petitions are valid.

The Government Accountability Board will review the petitions to ensure there are enough signatures to trigger recall contests, but it will only verify that the names are accompanied by a Wisconsin address and dated within the recall period. It’s up to the targeted office holder or other challengers to contest the validity of signatures and ferret out any duplicates.

If public-sector unions still have the right to represent workers (and they do), Bauer’s statement that the budget repair law “effectively ended collective bargaining rights” remains incorrect.

In the last two excerpted paragraphs, Bauer uses clever language to say that the Board won’t do anything at all to verify the names on recall petitions. It will instead wave through every signature submitted containing a name and address. “Mickey Mouse” gets a free pass from the Board, as long as the Mickster lists a Wisconsin address (which also is apparently not going to be validated). This makes the whole process vulnerable to massive fraud. As of now, it will be up to opponents to do what should be the Board’s work. Walker’s lawyers are attempting to force the Board to do what it should do.

As happened in his initial report back in February, Bauer contradicted himself tonight about the status of collective-barganing rights near the end of his report:

Walker has defended the collective bargaining changes, and other moves such as cutting public education aid, as necessary to bring the state’s budget back into balance at a time when it faced a $3.6 billion shortfall.

Oh, so now they’re only collective bargaining “changes,” meaning that collective bargaining rights really haven’t been “effectively ended.”

What Bauer is doing, consistent with his February methodology, is ensuring that news readers, listeners, and viewers around the country who are fed the AP’s copy at subscribing outlets tonight and tomorrow will get a false impression that the dispute in Wisconsin is still all about completely ending union representation of all public-sector employees. It ain’t so — but almost no one will get to Paragraph 21 to find out. Deceitful mission accomplished, I guess.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

From AP:

Republican U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis says he won’t seek re-election to Congress.

In a statement Thursday he said he’s leaving so he can spend more time with his family.

The fiscal and social conservative has served a district that stretches along the top of Kentucky from the Louisville suburbs to the West Virginia border since 2005.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions said Kentucky is losing an “influential” and “exemplary” representative.

Initial reactions: I don’t think Davis has been anywhere near scandal or ethical problems during his tenure, but you never know, especially with what I think is the suddenness of the announcement. This should be a district a Republican successor can hold.

Full statement at Davis’s web site:

Congressman Geoff Davis [KY-4] made the following statement today:

“In order to devote more time to my family, I have decided not to seek re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

“It is an honor to have the trust and confidence of the citizens of Kentucky’s Fourth Congressional District.

“I have been blessed with an exceptionally competent staff who have helped thousands of Kentuckians over the years. Moreover, together we have passed critical pieces of legislation and enacted laws to reform our government, strengthen our national security, protect our veterans and service members, create economic revival and energy independence, and improve transparency and accountability of the government.

“As Chairman of the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Human Resources, we have set a new tone that combines genuine concern for the least among us, with pragmatic process reforms that are both compassionate and conservative. That attitude and focus have produced real results and proactive bi-partisan legislation, despite the negative partisan climate in Washington. Indeed, we have proven that people of diverse world views can find common ground and produce meaningful results.

“I thank the people of Kentucky’s Fourth District for this honor and look forward to continued service to our community and to our Republic in other capacities as I return to the private sector. I also want to thank my friend and mentor, former Senator Jim Bunning, for his example of steadfast character and unimpeachable integrity in service.

“Most of all, I thank my wonderful wife Pat and our children for their unfailing love, grace under pressure, and tireless encouragement in answering this call to serve.

“I am grateful that I live in a country where a boy like me, growing up with little hope, could walk a path by God’s grace that has allowed me to encounter His peace, the joy of true love, and service at the highest levels of our elected national government. Truly, we are blessed in this Republic.”

I definitely want to take one last opportunity to thank Mr. Davis, whose district includes Northern Kentucky across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, for his military and congressional service.

On Tuesday (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I noted an email I received from Obama For America — I forgot to mention the subject line, which was “In honor of the GOP” — that encouraged readers to give $3 or more to Barack Obama’s reelection campaign and become entered to win dinner with the president and his wife. The email also promised donors that OFA would taunt (my word) a Republican acquaintance on their behalf with the fact that they just gave if they provided an email address to which to send the taunt. As will be shown later, establishment press coverage of this uniquely odious twist in campaign financing and conduct has been virtually non-existent.

In his commentary on the Obama campaign’s childishness, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto revealed that he had been forwarded a related OFA email targeting Facebook and Twitter users with another intensely annoying nuance. It reads as follows (bolds are mine throughout this post):

(more…)

James Pethokoukis calculates that America could be out $1 trillion if the euro zone collapses — a possibility that is far from remote:

IMF lending commitments already made to Greece, Ireland, and Portugal total over US$ 100 billion. Considering that the US has a 17 ¾ percent share in the IMF, this lending puts the US taxpayer at risk for almost US$20 billion.

… Considering that the IMF’s combined lending commitment to Italy and Spain could be of the order of US$1.3 trillion, the US taxpayers’ eventual exposure could be of the order of US$220 billion. (17% of $1.3 tril — Ed.)

… In assessing the potential risk to the US taxpayer from IMF lending to the European periphery, one has to consider that the risk of an unraveling of the Euro is a distinct possibility.

… U.S. taxpayer exposure is $220 billion via the IMF. That’s scary enough. But then you have the Fed. (The American Enterprise Institute’s Desmond) Lachman notes that the counterparty to the (Fed’s) potential $600 billion in swaps is the ECB and that “one must suppose that the European Central Bank would be able to buy whatever quantity of US dollars that it might need to repay the Federal Reserve.” Unless there is a complete euro collapse and then there might not be a ECB to repay anybody. So in addition to a global depression and 20 percent U.S. unemployment, America would be (out) nearly $1 trillion.

Almost no one in America would approve of this reckless assumption of risk if asked. Yet it goes ahead anyway.