ABC News: Government watchdog reports Treasury and Federal Reserve knew bailed-out banks were not healthy

OK. I yield to no one in my extremely low opinion of the intelligence of people in the government, but really . . .

if a company is healthy, why the hell would even the dolts in the government want to bail them out?

(I mean, besides the usual reasons of graft and corruption, that is.)

Question 2: Why in the name of all that's holy would anybody else believe the dolts in government when they say that any industry is healthy (like these banks) -- or they say it's in dire trouble and needs immediate right-the-hell-now reform (like, oh, say health care)?

This is a chilling story. Go and read it, then come back here and tell me government is not big enough and doesn't have enough control over your life, and mine.

This could happen to you. this weekend.

Tomorrow.

Or tonight.

Remember: "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse." In other words, you're expected to know and obey every stricture of the entire corpus of your locality's ordinances, your state's law, the U.S. Code, and all of the regulations published since the beginning of the Republic in the Federal Register.

You've got a lot of reading to do. Get busy. (Void where prohibited by law.)

On the round table on NBC's "Meet The Press":

MS. MADDOW: I think it's--I think we always lament the sharpness of our partisan divide. I don't think there's ever been a time where we felt very "Kumbaya" for the--as, as left and right, except for bad reasons, because the country was facing real adversity. And I think that the left/right fight is healthy. I mean, I, as a, as a liberal, I want conservatives and the Republican Party to be robust and, and participating in a, in a strong argument that, that advances the country's interests. I'm not hoping for the demise of my enemies. I do think that we've got vituperative language, language on both sides, and I think it should be damned on both sides.
. . .
MS. MADDOW: I, I do think that there's a little bit of reckoning that needs to happen on the right for Sarah Palin's success. I mean, she was the vice presidential nominee, she is going to sell a kazillion books and she is the biggest brand name in Republican politics still right now. And she's chose--the person who's writing her book, her last--the last person who she co-authored a book with was called "Donkey Cons" and it was co-authored with a guy who's widely believed to be and I believe him to be a white supremacist. So she's chosen Lynn Vincent, who's written a book with a white supremacist, to write her book, and she's the biggest name in Republican politics.

Uh. OK, Rachel. You say you oppose "vituperative language" but in nearly the next breath on the very same TV show go way, way out of your way to accuse Sarah Palin of being a "white supremacist" by the most tenuous (and by the way quite possibly defamatory) guilt-by-association.

Whatever.

I assume for Maddow's next circus act she'll be "damning" herself.

By the way, Maddow's unnamed "white supremacist" is none other than Robert Stacy "the Other" McCain.

If that's all they've got on Vincent and McCain and Palin, Maddow and her gang are about to experience their worst nightmare--an energized conservative/libertarian coalition with a charismatic leader who are all sick and tired of the unending innuendos and slanders and lies of Maddow and the rabid left. And I think they know it.

UPDATE: I get a coveted Rule 2 link from The Other himself.

My God, THAT'S why they are afraid of him! He's THE OTHER! AIEEEEEEE!!!!!!

Sioux Falls, South Dakota owes much of its recent explosion of growth to South Dakota's extremely loose usury laws.

Continued after the "read more."

For the children.

For the government.

From Gay Patriot:

1 - A rich, famous brother of a Democrat President who drives drunk off a bridge and murders a young woman who was not his wife: OKAY

2 - A famous Hollywood Director who intoxicates, then rapes a 13 year old girl, confesses to it and then runs from the law for 30 years: OKAY

3 - A Democrat President who sexually harasses an intern under his employ in the Oval Office then lies under oath: OKAY

4 - A Republican Congressman who texts with 17-18 year old boys but never met them: NOT OKAY

5 - A Democrat Senator currently with leadership status who was the elected “Exalted Cyclops” in the Ku Klux Klan and repeatedly used racial slurs on television until he became too old and his words slurred: OKAY

6 - A Republican Congressman who yelled at a President who happens to be African-American: NOT OKAY

7 - A Democrat school teacher, now Presidential “Safe Schools Czar”, who did nothing when a teenager told him of dangerous sex habits with older men: OKAY

8 - A Republican VP candidate whose underage daughter becomes the target of rape jokes by liberal Late Night talk show host: OKAY (and hilarious!)

9 - A liberal Late Night host sexually harassing employees on his staff: ALSO OKAY

Admittedly, there are some who might find such a list from a site called "Gay Patriot" a tad ironic. I don't. Judge accordingly. (Something about "what responsible adults do in the privacy of their own homes . . . ") See, there's "tolerance" and then there's tolerance. There's a difference.

Captain Steve Schmidt of the S.S. 2008 McCain Campaign thinks a Palin 2012 Presidential run might not be such a good idea:

"In the year since the election has ended, she has done nothing to expand her appeal beyond the base. ... Th[e] independent vote is going to be up for grabs in 2012. That middle of the electorate is going to be determinative of the outcome of the elections. I just don't see that if you look at the things she has done over the year ... that she is going to expand that base in the middle."

On the other hand, Schmidt is something of an expert on running disastrously incompetent Presidential campaigns, so I guess he does know what he's talking about there. And we're all quite well aware Schmidt a deep, abiding hatred of Palin, after his campaign's woefully inept and ham-fisted handling of her during the election run.

On the other, other hand, the 2012 election is three years and one month away, Steve old boy. Let's talk after Palin's book has been out a while. At this time in 2005, "Barack Obama" was just a punch line of obscure inside-the-Beltway political jokes.

If you say it often enough, it will become true.

The economy is recovering.

The economy is recovering.

The economy is recovering.

National jobless rate inches up to 9.8 percent.

Jobs data send oil prices tumbling

Stocks fall as September jobs report disappoints

Factory orders fall unexpectedly in August

The economy is recovering.

The economy is recovering.

The economy is recovering.

But there is no joy in Onionville--mighty Barry has struck out.

Megan McArdle on 'Cash for Clunkers':

in the aftermath, sales are plummeting:  47% at GM, 44% at Chrysler, 8.9% at Ford, 16% at Toyota, 23% at Honda, 11% at Nissan.  I hope those car companies used the cash infusion now, because they'll be on lean rations for months, even years.

There were economists who tried to tell Congress and the President that 'Cash for Clunkers' was a bad idea. They were ignored.

Now, and in the months and years ahead, we'll see exactly how much it really cost us.

This is what they call a "successful government program."

If this is success, do any of us really want to see what failure looks like?

Politico--John McCain's mission: A GOP makeover:

Fresh from a humbling loss in last year’s presidential election, Sen. John McCain is working behind-the-scenes to reshape the Republican Party in his own center-right image.

McCain is recruiting candidates, raising money for them and hitting the campaign trail on their behalf. He’s taken sides in competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial primaries and introduced his preferred candidates to his top donors.

I held my nose and voted for you last November, for all the good it did, John. You have not convinced me you actually understand the fundamental concepts of liberty and republican government, and I will never again compromise that fundamental requirement for a Presidential candidate. You have proved yourself to be far too willing to compromise my liberty for your own ends. I still remember McCain-Feingold, John. I voted for you despite that. That was a mistake.

The only good thing you did in the entire campaign was bring up Sarah Palin to be your running mate. I think that, unlike you, John, Palin understands liberty and republican government. You, John, gave us the current cult of personality that's systematically taking this country apart and re-assembling it in the image of the worst of the European democratic-socialist model.

I am sure that wasn't your intent, John, but unlike a Democrat, I judge people on results, not on intent.

MIchael Yon, writing in the Washington Times:

We are losing popular support. Confidence in the Afghan and coalition governments is plummeting. Loss of human terrain is evident. Conditions are building for an avalanche. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the military commander in Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are aware of the rumbling, and so today we are bound by rules of engagement that appear insensible.

We must curb civilian losses at expense to ourselves. I believe the reasoning is sound and will share those increased dangers. Erosion of popular support seems reversible. There still is considerable good will from the Afghan population, but bomb by bomb we can blow it. We have breathing room if we work with wise alacrity. I sense a favorable shift in our operations occurring under Gen. McChrystal.

Enemies are strengthening. Attacks are dramatically increasing in frequency and efficacy. We are being out-governed by tribes and historical social structures. These structures are - and will be for the foreseeable future - the most powerful influence upon and within the political terrain. "Democracy" does not grow on land where most people don't vote. The most remarkable item I saw during the Aug. 20 elections was the machine-gun ambush we walked into.

The coalition is weakening. While the U.S. has gotten serious, the organism called NATO is a jellyfish for which the United States is both sea and prevailing wind. The disappointing effort from many partners is best exemplified by the partners who are pushing hardest: The British are fine examples.

There's more. Go and read it. Then go check out Yon's web site.

That's what two Harvard economists, Robert J. Barro and Charles J. Redlick report in the Wall Street Journal.

The bottom line is this: The available empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will likely raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending. Defense-spending multipliers exceeding one likely apply only at very high unemployment rates, and nondefense multipliers are probably smaller. However, there is empirical support for the proposition that tax rate reductions will increase real GDP.

In other words, in the real world, tax cuts are the correct policy response to an economic slowdown. Non-defense "stimulus" spending doesn't work. Defense-related stimulus spending works, but only when the unemployment rate is "very high."

Obama and the Democrats have wasted our time and money. Bigtime.

John Stossel piles on:

In January, the administration's economic models warned that unemployment would hit 9 percent next year if its $787 billion "stimulus" wasn't passed. Passing it would keep the jobless rate under 8 percent before it begins to fall.

Well, the packaged passed-and unemployment in August rose to 9.7 percent.

Oops.

OK, economic forecasters make mistakes. Fair enough. But neither the administration experts nor President Obama will acknowledge that their models and strategy are flawed. Instead, they spin the numbers and proclaim success, insisting that the plan is working even though unemployment is higher than they said it would be.

The Democrats: Dead wrong on the economy. What else are they dead wrong about?