Jones said he was protesting not only for environmental reasons, but also because the miners are being cheated of their earned pensions. Ironically, Jones has spent considerable time, money, and effort to put coal miners out of work by way of demonizing fossil fuel energy production.

CNN hasn’t commented on the actions of Jones, nor is it clear whether the news organization paid for his travel expenses.

****************************************************

Jones is not alone.

Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) (and Van Jones BFF) got himself arrested on purpose a couple of years ago. The two are quite close, apparently. Read: The Company You Keep
****************************************************
Follow me on Twitter!

And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them; we don’t have chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts.

That’s what the American people would expect. And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So, you know, it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way.

When pressed by Henry on the question of whether or not the U.S. would act militarily against the Assad regime in Syria, Obama came short of stating that would happen, opting to merely state that he has options outlined by the Pentagon. What those options are were not mentioned, for security reasons.

On Benghazi, the question was on members of the administration that have apparently been blocked from testifying about what they know about the attack that lead to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three members of the consulate staff.

Ed, I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying. So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to. What I’ve been very clear about from the start is that our job with respect to Benghazi has been to find out exactly what happened, to make sure that U.S. embassies not just in the Middle East but around the world are safe and secure and to bring those who carried it out to justice.

It’s not surprising that Obama denied that anyone was being blocked from testifying, but it’s also unlikely that there will be any follow-up on the question as promised. Obama moved on to the next reporter after this.

Jessica Yellin of CNN offered the next question on whether or not we, as a nation, are moving backwards in national security and intelligence, citing Senator Lindsey Graham’s concerns on the matter. Note that the question focused on the failure in preventing the Boston bombing, not the subsequent reaction and investigation.

No. Mr. Graham is not right on this issue, although I’m sure it generated some headlines. I think that what we saw in Boston was state, local, federal officials, every agency, rallying around a city that had been attacked, identifying the perpetrators just hours after the scene had been examined. We now have one individual deceased, one in custody. Charges have been brought.

I think that all our law enforcement officials performed in an exemplary fashion after the bombing had taken place. And we should be very proud of their work, as obviously we’re proud of the people of Boston, all the first responders and the medical personnel that helped save lives.

What we also know is that the Russian intelligence services had alerted U.S. intelligence about the older brother as well as the mother, indicating that they might be sympathizers to extremists. The FBI investigated that older brother. It’s not as if the FBI did nothing. They not only investigated the older brother; they interviewed the older brother. They concluded that there were no signs that he was engaging in extremist activity. So that much we know.

Obama did go on to note that we need to be vigilant to prevent a future attack, stated that the Department of Homeland Security and FBI had done their jobs, and stated that we need to go on living our lives.

The next question was from Jonathan Karl at ABC, and bluntly asked if the President felt that he had the ability to pass his agenda, given the push back he has been getting from both sides of the aisle in Congress. Sequestration was also brought up in this segment, particularly the FAA.

Look, we — you know, we understand that we’re in divided government right now. Republicans control the House of Representatives. In the Senate, this habit of requiring 60 votes for even the most modest piece of legislation has gummed up the works there. And I think it’s — comes to no surprise, not even to the American people, but even to members of Congress themselves, that right now things are pretty dysfunctional up on Capitol Hill.

Despite that, I’m actually confident that there are a range of things that we’re going to be able to get done. I feel confident that the bipartisan work that’s been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the Senate and passes the House and gets on my desk. And that’s going to be a historic achievement. And I’m — I’ve been very complimentary of the efforts of both Republicans and Democrats in those efforts.

And on the FAA, and Congress:

Well, hold on a second. The — so the alternative, of course, is either to go ahead and impose a whole bunch of delays on passengers now, which also does not fix the problem, or the third alternative is to actually fix the problem by coming up with a broader, larger deal.

But, you know, Jonathan, you seem to suggest that somehow, these folks over there have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave. That’s their job. They are elected, members of Congress are elected in order to do what’s right for their constituencies and for the American people. So if, in fact, they are seriously concerned about passenger convenience and safety, then they shouldn’t just be thinking about tomorrow or next week or the week after that; they should be thinking about what’s going to happen five years from now, 10 years from now or 15 years from now.

The only way to do that is for them to engage with me on coming up with a broader deal.

And that’s exactly what I’m trying to do is to continue to talk to them about are there ways for us to fix this. Frankly, I don’t think that if I were to veto, for example, this FAA bill, that that somehow would lead to the broader fix. It just means that there’d be pain now, which they would try to blame on me, as opposed to pain five years from now. But either way, the problem’s not getting fixed. The only way the problem does get fixed is if both parties sit down and they say, how are we going to make sure that we’re reducing our deficit sensibly; how are we making sure that we’ve investing in things like rebuilding our airports and our roads and our bridges and investing in early childhood education and all — basic research, all the things that are going to help us grow, and that’s what the American people want.

The last questions were offered by Bill Plante of CBS, Chuck Todd of NBC, and Antonieta Cadiz of the Chilean press, offering questions on Guantanamo Bay, ObamaCare, and Immigration respectively. Obama did make a parting statement on NBA player Jason Collins “coming out of the closet”. A full transcript of the press conference is available at the Washington Post website.

Criticized by the Obama administration as being biased the SoA states they were commissioned to do the evaluation by UnitedHealth Group but denies they skewed the information. Read the report here.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated: “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population, that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

It is worth noting that individual insurance policies currently make up only 6% of health coverage. The study did not evaluate employer insurance costs. It is also worth noting that Secretary Sebelius and Team Obama continue to promote taxpayer sponsored subsidies to reduce expenses to many recipients.

This sudden admission of increased cost as now being reported by many Obamacare proponents may be a signal of realization that the promised reduction in health care will not be as promised.

If the video does not work you can watch it on YouTube: CNN Reports.

But read further in the article and one will learn that the poll data included 44% Democrats and a mere 17% Republicans. They say their sampling has a plus or minus error rate of only 5%.

And they wonder why they come in at the bottom of the pile for ratings.

Read the entire article here: CNN

Biden’s new debate coach is not an improvement over John Kerry.

What does it say about a campaign when its hope for putting a stop to a precipitous decline in the polls is Joe Biden? Last night fireman Joe was at his pompous, bloviating best in the Vice President Debate with Cong. Paul Ryan. The most memorable line in his paper thin, fact–free rebuttals came when Biden looked directly at the camera and asked viewers, “Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

Earlier in the week Obama staffers were trying to pin the blame for the current President’s poor showing on John Kerry’s debate preparation, but I don’t think replacing Kerry with the Cheshire Cat was much of an improvement. In the split–screen shots Biden looked like a dirty old man staring at an elementary school swing set as he leered and grinned during Ryan’s answers.

When he wasn’t interrupting and talking over Ryan, Biden was muttering and chuckling to himself like Gollum in the underground lake. I suggest that whoever posts these clips on YouTube use Aqualung as the background music.

The only time I had any sympathy for “Good Old Joe” was when the camera showed a view of the back of his head and you could see where even his hair implants were thinning.

Believe it or not Biden took a full six days off the campaign trail just to prepare for the debate. To put this in perspective, Jesus didn’t require six days to prepare for the crucifixion.

Presumably the first three days of preparation were devoted to words Joe wasn’t supposed to say including but not limited to: gay, marriage, chains, crushed, taxes, jobs, 7/11, Slurpee, f–ing, deal, articulate, bright and clean. And the last three days to words he should say. In fact, according to a report in the Daily Mail, Joe was programmed with hand–me–down one–liners that Obama refused to use on Romney.

Fortunately, since the debate was held before a mixed audience, Biden did not have to adopt with the black dialect Obama affects when he’s speaking exclusively to minorities. Biden got to keep all his ‘g’s and was not be required to use “folks.”

The process wasn’t brainwashing per se, but it required at least a light rinse.

And somewhere during all this preparation Joe found time to rent a floor polisher so he could buff his teeth.

This focus on Biden brings back memories doesn’t it? Joe was added to the team for his “extensive foreign policy experience” and his “long term Washington expertise.” Yes, 69–year–old Joe was cashing a government paycheck and sticking his foot in his mouth at time when the 42–year­–old Ryan had to be content with his thumb.

This is why conservative columnists hav alwayse been grateful Biden is the white guy.

Last night while showing off his expertise, Biden claimed the US is Israel’s best friend and that Obama and Netanyahu have personally met 12 times. Both are lies: Obama pledged to create some distance from Israel and the two have met nine times.

“Foreign Policy” Joe stated emphatically that the consulate in Libya had not asked for additional security, intelligence experts did not warn of an attack and that he knows from security briefings that Iran is a long way from getting an atomic bomb.

Unfortunately Ryan failed to point out that Thursday’s Washington Post had printed the emails asking for additional security at the consulate and he failed to ask Biden if the “intelligence experts” who assured him Iran is a long way from the bomb are the same ones who promised him the Libyan consulate was in no danger.

After Romney won the first debate so decisively, one would have thought MSM coverage of the VP event would be reality–based. But that’s not so, the media remains an Obama co–conspirator. CNN reported its own poll of debate watchers “a draw.”

Yet the graph clearly shows Ryan won 48 percent to 44 percent. What’s more, 28 percent of viewers said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney compared to the 21 percent who said they were more likely to vote for Obama. And Ryan was judged more likeable than both “Public Trough” Joe & Big Bird by 53 percent to 43 percent, both of the latter being outside the margin of error.

And a pathetic AP reporter by the name of Jocelyn Noveck claimed, “the vice president also came up with the two catchiest phrases of the night – “bunch of malarkey” and “bunch of stuff.” Both of which are trite and ancient.

Fortunately, participants in a Luntz debate focus group that — was not on the MSM or Obama campaign payroll — felt Biden was “arrogant.” Personally, I thought that if Joe had a few feathers he could play Foghorn Leghorn.

The best part about the debate was viewers now realize to their horror that a lying boastful buffoon is a heartbeat away from a President that is helpless without a teleprompter.

Or as Barbara Schribner wrote: Now we can put a set of teeth on the empty chair.

The Vice Presidential Debate in Danville, Kentucky featured a calm, cool Paul Ryan facing off against a visibly irritated, impatient and unruly Vice President Joe Biden. CNN conducted a poll after the debate asking who readers thought won the debate and Ryan edged out the feisty VP by four points – the left became unhinged in the comments.

The poll had a 5% margin of error which means the results actually indicate that the candidates matched evenly within the margin.Only 381 people responded to the poll, which is a small sample by polling standards.

What’s more interesting is the reaction of CNN readers – off the hinges ..

Seriously? There was a sample of 381 people.. why go off on it? Never mind.

Why is the sample so small and was the poll taken as a phone survey, exit survey, web poll? No indication

Another important note is CNN admitting it’s normal polling bias. In special note #2 on the poll, CNN says that their poll shows a slight GOP lean which they argue is not indicative of the general public:

SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public.

Interesting that CNN feels that that a 25% Republican sample would have been better? Exactly how “Republican” is the general public? Then again, why does it matter? Many Conservatives are unaffiliated independents, so not seeing a full set of cross-tables could mean that independents were more the reason for the Ryan weighting. The special note is meant to make it seem as though a heavy GOP sample is to blame.

Like Polls? Answer our VP debate questions at the bottom of this page.

Secretary of Defense (CC)

And now we’re down to trying to figure out who knew what, and when. For now, it’s become clear that the administration knew from day one that this was a terrorist attack. It had nothing to do with the video that slandered Islam. In the coming months, it wouldn’t be surprising to find out that none of the attacks on Western embassies in the Middle East and North Africa had anything to do with that film. But, beyond all of that, the fact that the administration has admitted fairly quickly that they knew from the beginning the true nature of the attack in Benghazi is unsettling. It was not a situation where the press was exerting any great pressure on them about the situation – they were taking the story they were being spoon fed with the noted exceptions of FoxNews, and a few foreign press agencies. While I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist, this definitely causes me to think there’s something more to this whole story.

While the administration has been very quick to point out what a great man Ambassador Stevens was – that’s to be expected – the fact that he was assigned to Libya is a little puzzling. It’s become clear over the past couple weeks that Libya was far less stable than the administration was leading people to believe – and they knew it. Stevens specialized in the Middle East and North Africa, and admittedly, there were other far more stable outposts in the region where he could have been assigned. I suggest this right now because of one glaring fact – Stevens was openly gay. Given the level of hatred and intolerance seen exerted against gays in Islamist nations, the last place any responsible member of the administration should want to place an openly gay diplomat is one where there is even a hint of radical Islamic activity. Either the administration is entirely incompetent, or someone really didn’t care about the safety of Stevens at all when choosing his assignment. Of course, these are issues that may or may not have been addressed in that journal the administration didn’t want CNN reporting about – and apparently didn’t want to read themselves.

There is no proof apparent of what I’ve suggested above. It is merely an observation, based on the few facts available right now – call it an exercise in basic logic. And perhaps it is a suggestion to the few people out there that are really interested in finding out the truth about this attack. Beyond searching for information on the radicals in Libya, another priority should be investigating what was really going on in the administration before the attack. Did Stevens have any enemies in the administration? Were there any under-the-table deals going on between the administration and Islamist organizations on the ground in Libya? Is there really a credible connection to al-Qaeda, or is it merely a matter of a single man with previous associations with that organization having a hand in the planning? And, like any other questionable situation in the Federal Government, how high does it really go? That last one is very important, primarily because Obama detractors have a horrible habit of giving him far too much credit when it comes to just about everything. Bluntly, he’s too much of an amateur in foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, to personally manage being puppetmaster on something like this. The Islam apologist policies he follows are really his undoing in the region – radical Muslims respect him less than the right-wing in the U.S. does because of it. The bottom line is that we are nowhere near the end of this one, if there is even one person determined to stay the course, and figure out exactly what happened. And it will be interesting to see what the truth really is.

Excuse me, while I sift through this bulls**t

I had a REALLY bad episode of insomnia last night, therefore, I was unable to promptly respond to a tweet sent to me by Robert Stacy McCain concerning Ali Akbar exposing CNN’s Soledad O’Brien’s latest incident in liberal media bias.  Did she use Wikipedia again?

Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters said “bravo, Ali! bravo” and who can disagree with him.  Ali Akbar of Viral Read reported on August 13th that Soledad O’ Brien– while guest hosting for Anderson Cooper– used a Talking Points Memo post to slam Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan in an exchange with Virginia House of Delegates member and Romney Senior Campaign Adviser Barbara Comstock:

She was reading The Myth of Paul Ryan The Bipartisan Leader. She never cited it, but used its contents. In fact, she claimed to be reading a direct statement from Senator Wyden’s (D-OR) office, but was in fact reading this excerpt from the blog:

The Romney campaign’s lone evidence that Ryan is a bipartisan leader amounts to a vague blueprint he co-wrote with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) late last year that mirrors key elements of his Medicare plan. Wyden voted against Ryan’s budget and said Romney’s characterization of their work was dishonest.

“Governor Romney is talking nonsense. Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts,” Wyden’s office said in a statement. “I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.”

Uh-OH!

BUSTED! This is just as entertaining as the time when Ms. O’Brien used Wikipedia to define Critical Race Theory in an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak last March.   Robert Stacy McCain also posted about this unbelievable event writing– “The Most Trusted Name in News”? She’s a disgrace.

H/T Viral Read

H/T Ali Akbar

CNN should have no axe to grind in this story. If anything they are trying to improve their viewership by reminding us that they can report unbiased news. You can help by refuting the stories with news clips like this:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

CNN’s Christine Romans played Obama spokesperson on Monday’s Starting Point and accused Republicans of creating “uncertainty” about ObamaCare in trying to repeal it. That fits what has seemingly become a CNN line of “stop fighting this law and get in line.”

“I’m wondering, should Congresspeople be spending more time helping their constituents comply with the law rather than continuing all this uncertainty about it?” Romans challenged Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Ironically, CNN’s own poll shows a majority in favor of Congress repealing the law.

CNN has scoffed at Republican attempts the repeal the law before. Hours after the Supreme Court upheld the law, anchor Brooke Baldwin asked Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) if he wasn’t being a “sore loser” for continuing to fight ObamaCare.

Romans continued to grill Blackburn about helping her constituents comply with ObamaCare. “I mean, I hear more from Republicans saying ‘we’re going to make this not come true,’ not ‘here’s how we’re going to help you get your business to comply’,” she lamented.

Romans also revealed she counsels small business owners with less than 50 employees that the law won’t crush them, but Blackburn fought back. “[W]hen they talk to their insurance provider, the insurance provider says because of the new regulations that are going to be contained in Obamacare, this is what is happening to your insurance cost,” she insisted.

My first real encounter with CNN happened at the onset of the First Gulf War. We didn’t have cable but one of our local stations broadcast the station live through the night as Bernard Shaw, Peter Arnett and John Holliman reported from their position. Better than any reality television today; there was no editing. It was raw coverage, the men were caught unexpectedly when the war began and not able to leave the area. So they reported live, for hours and days, on the shelling and gunfire surrounding their hotel. It was riveting. You can feel the tension in these clips:

 

The opportunity to have live international news was so compelling we joined many and signed up for cable.

But now, more than 20 years later, things have changed. No longer king, CNN seen its ratings hemorrhage losing 35-40% of their viewers in the past quarter as listed in the Hollywood Reporter and By The Numbers.

CNN – Prime time viewers – 446,000 (25-54 age group – 129,000)

MSNBC – Prime time viewers – 689,000 (25-54 age group – 217,000)

FOX—Prime time viewers –1.79 Million (25-54 age group – 254,000)

It is worth noting that both MSNBC and FOX also reported lower numbers, but appreciably smaller changes.

Waiting at the airport last week I was reminded of the once powerful station.  Sitting there watching CNN I wondered whether the airport chose to air this station due to popularity or perhaps they were under contract. With ratings in the tank it is apparent that the station was not on due to passenger request.

As Bob Dylan sings, “The times, they are a-changin’”.

The piece itself is the personification of the Obamamania craze that swept the millennial generation into action four years ago.  She details how the president “is committed to rebuilding our economy upon the values of fairness and opportunity and the belief that all Americans, both men and women, must have the rights they deserve..asking Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to help stop pay discrimination before it starts and close the 23% gap between women’s earnings and men’s earnings…[and] Obama has moved our country forward by working not only to ensure Americans’ prosperity, but also by guaranteeing that our rights are protected and we all have opportunities to succeed. By comparison, Romney has offered only frightening promises to send us backward.”

The succeeding paragraphs bash Romney  in a similar fashion seen in the Obama campaign’s Julia presentation depicting a miserable existence for American women.  If you’ve seen it, you know what I’m talking about.   However, in the interview, CNN’s Carol Costello must have missed the information that stated Fluke she was already a political activist before Georgetown because she hardly grilled her.

CAROL COSTELLO CNN: You were a Georgetown student. Now you’re a full- blown political activist. And you wrote this op-ed for CNN.com. You endorsed the president. 

Do you think people will take your endorsement seriously?

SANDRA FLUKE: Well, I think that they can take it for what it’s worth. I have looked very closely at these policies. And I take very seriously anything that I take a position on. That’s actually why I waited until now to endorse anyone in this presidential election.

I felt that a lot of people were looking to me for my opinion, following these controversies. And I wanted to remain nonpartisan and specifically look at which policies I could support.

 But I have just concluded that Governor Romney must not be looking for the vote of people like me because he’s not taking a stand on issues that are really important to me. Issues like the Paycheck Fairness Act or, you know, so many other things that I’m concerned about.

Later on in the segment, Costello asked  “well, by the same token, Mitt Romney’s favorability rating among women is rising. And if he doesn’t care about these things that you’re talking about, why do you suppose that is?

”

Fluke responded by saying “I think that he’s recently been selected as the Republican nominee. And there’s inevitably a consolidation around a nominee when that occurs, and that’s what we’re seeing. That said, for months now we have seen the president having a considerable lead among women.

And that’s because they know that he is a strong leader for the policies that we care about. Policies like affordable access to education, in terms of student loan rates. And policies like the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Violence Against Women Act.

”

Yes, the Paycheck Fairness Act would help equalize the salaries of those female staffers amongst the women’s wing of the Democratic Senate Caucus who pay them much less than their male counterparts, but that is a hypocrisy analysis for another day.  Concerning unemployment, Costello pressed Fluke by asking ”But when you look at the unemployment figures for young people, they are pretty abysmal. Why should young people, the millennial generation, enthusiastically support this president?

”  I found the response lacking to say the least.

FLUKE: Actually, I saw something on ABC recently that things are increasingly — that this is the best time for employment opportunities for young college graduates since this recession started. And I think that the difference between Governor Romney and President Obama is that both of them are very focused on improving the economy for all of us, but President Obama is focused on improving it for all of us, not just for the select, wealthy few, and making sure that we have the rights and protections that we need in those jobs and in that workplace.

COSTELLO: I’m not sure that many college students who have just graduated would agree that the employment picture is looking any brighter.

FLUKE: The ones I have spoken to do actually.

COSTELLO: Really if what do they say? Are they finding jobs? The college students that we talk with are having a difficult time.

FLUKE: Well, I have talked with lots of folks who I graduated with in terms of law school graduates. This is the first year that things are looking up for them and increasing rates. And I am hearing that from graduates across the country.

What was the “something” on ABC?  When I searched the ABC news website, I did find an artitcle titled “College Graduates Enjoy Best Job Market in Years.” However, the piece states that “the unemployment rate for college graduates 24 and under averaged 7.2% from January through April. That rate, which is not adjusted for seasonal factors, is down from the first four months of 2011 (9.1%), 2010 (8.1%) and 2009 (7.8%). For all Americans, the unemployment rate is 8.1 percent.”  How is this good news for college graduates?  Furthermore, if Ms. Fluke was a serious journalist, she could at least name one guy or gal she chatted with about the economy, but I guess hacks don’t have much time to write down names.  They have to post columns and give interviews detailing the Obama agenda under the false pretenses of “remaining nonpartisan.”

P.S. Last time I checked, Romney lead women according to a CBS-NYT poll.

"We didn't lose"

Believe it or not, some liberals feel they didn’t lose, despite the curb stomping Tom Barrett took last night.

Note to left-wingers: Elections can be called without all the votes being counted, especially when all the returns point to a landslide victory. (i.e 1984 presidential election)

(h/t Dana Loesch)

Your Tax Dollars!

More news of the stimulus’s failure emerged this week with CBO’s report citing how it may have cost $4.1 million per job, but the story that should be on everyone’s minds concerning the Obama’s agenda is California’s high speed rail project.  Calls for a high speed rail system by the Obama administration have been enhanced given China’s successful completion of their system last summer.  However, if you look at the current California project, the scale of failure is epical and our tax dollars are being poured into it.

In a rare instance, CNN gave a rather insightful report on how this proposed high speed rail is actually three times more than its estimated cost. The railroad project itself seemed sound.  A line from Los Angeles to San Francisco spanning 2oo miles was a palatable initiative for Californians, which is why they voted for a $10 billion dollar bond measure back in 2008.  However, the original estimate was in the ball park of about $34 billion dollars. It is now  projected to cost a monstrous $198 billion dollars.  Additionally, Drew Griffin, CNN Investigative Correspondent, reported that not a single rail has been laid in the four years since the initiative was passed.

This marks another stinging failure of the domestic agenda of the Obama administration.  First clean energy, now high speed rail networks.  It fits nicely into the description George Will aptly made about American liberalism on Charlie Rose last August as”an amalgamation of appetites of parochial interests.”   The project is now revised under the new Chairman of California’s Railway Authority, Dan Richard, but it’s very different original high speed blueprint. Griffin stated:

It turns out, the latest plan could be for a much slower train, not actually the high- speed futuristic cartoon California voters approved four years ago. More of a hybrid that goes slower, makes a few more stops and doesn’t quite deliver the L.A. to San Francisco promise of just a few hours.

And that’s not the half of it. This is about to become really political. California’s high-speed rail has one huge backer — President Barack Obama — and that is where you come in. The administration has pledged $3.5 billion in stimulus money, also known as federal tax dollars, and that’s just so far. Now, California admits it will need even more, tens of billions of dollars more from federal taxpayers to finish it.

But first, you have to start. And that’s where it really gets dicey. The foundational segment, the first stretch of track, will cost at least $6 billion alone and, under the new plan, will connect Fresno to Burbank. It won’t go anywhere near San Francisco. And in the process, will dissect generations-old dairy farms, nut orchards and towns that don’t want it.

That’s not the worst of it.  Apparently, Barack Obama, who continues to be a staunch proponent of this project:

 has pledged $3.5 billion in stimulus money, also known as federal tax dollars, and that’s just so far. Now, California admits it will need even more, tens of billions of dollars more from federal taxpayers to finish it.

But first, you have to start. And that’s where it really gets dicey. The foundational segment, the first stretch of track, will cost at least $6 billion alone and, under the new plan, will connect Fresno to Burbank. It won’t go anywhere near San Francisco. And in the process, will dissect generations-old dairy farms, nut orchards and towns that don’t want it.

However, even with the inflated costs and objections by local farmers, Dan Richard and the rest at the Railroad Authority aren’t giving up.  After all, as Griffin reported, “they’ve already got the promised $3 billion of your tax dollars in federal stimulus. California may not get another dime from President Obama, but it has no intention of giving back the $3 billion already promised or the billions more from California voters.”  This Rube Goldberg project is expected to take ten years to finish.  Who’s lining up to get their first ticket?

Audio experts are working around the clock to find more Zimmerman racism hidden in the 9–1–1 tapes. Maybe if they play them backward...

Good news for Neighborhood Watch celebrity, George Zimmerman. The Associated Press reports that in 23 years only 2,000 people have been exonerated after being wrongly convicted of a serious felony.

Each year there are nearly one million felony convictions, over 10,000 times more than the 90 innocent defendants wrongly convicted. The findings are particularly encouraging for Zimmerman as he faces criminal prosecution for second–degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin and simultaneously a trial–by–media for the same offense.

The miscarriage of justice rate compares very favorably with the hospital medical error rate of 18 percent, where presumably the doctor doesn’t have any animus toward the customer, as opposed to prosecutors who do.

And public opinion is starting to come around. A new Rasmussen Reports national survey found 40 percent think Zimmerman acted in self–defense.

This finding is in sharp contrast to a survey of mainstream journalists that found 85 percent believe Zimmerman should already be doing time in Guantanamo.

Then when it appears justice may finally be allowed to take its course, the Washington Post uses a discredited CNN idea to attack George.

You may recall CNN reporter Gary Tuchman examined Zimmerman’s 9–1–1 call and discovered RACISM! Which is to be expected from someone with a white father. Using “one of the most sophisticated audio edit suites in the broadcast news business” CNN heard Zimmerman saying “(bleeping) coons” after technicians “enhanced” the recording.

Naturally to demonstrate even–handed news judgment, the tape was played for viewers about 300 times during the segment. As the reporter intoned, “Listen closely for “coon,” a word only bigots use. Remember it starts with a ‘c’ and ends with ‘oon.’”

Except the word wasn’t “coon.” Two weeks later, with much less fanfare, CNN re–enhances the tape and sure enough Zimmerman was saying “(bleeping) cold.”

How fortunate Zimmerman didn’t have to hide in the weeds to observe Martin. I can only imagine what the media would have done if George had muttered something about being bitten by a (bleeping) chigger.

Which brings us back to the sound–enhancing WaPo and its recording of a witness call, which FBI analysts have already termed “inconclusive.” The WaPo recycles the lie that Zimmerman ignored an order from the dispatcher. And in a nice touch, writes “…cursing under his breath, Zimmerman got out of his truck and began to follow (Martin).” But, thanks to CNN, we know Zimmerman was cursing the weather, a common activity worldwide, and not Martin.

Martin’s father heard the WaPo tape and told police the voice was not his son’s, But that was before lawyers got to him and visions of wrongful death lawsuits began dancing in his head. In contrast, the WaPo’s expert — who wouldn’t have known Trayvon if the kid had approached him at 7/11 and asked for a loan to buy Skittles — imagines Martin yelling, “I’m begging you!” “Help me!” And then, “Stop!”

Since the story was written by two females, I won’t fault them for their lack of expertise when it comes to fight dynamics. But in the real world the person who lands the first punch usually wins. Since witnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman repeatedly punching him “MMA” style, it’s reasonable to assume his was the first punch.

Someone winning a fight is also not the one calling for help. The puncher is usually concentrating on pounding the punchee. Evidence shows Zimmerman’s back was wet from ground contact and he had a broken nose, two black eyes and cuts on the back of his head, so Trayvon evidently was doing a thorough job.

You can find the recording on the Post website and identifying any one element is like trying to isolate a single razzberry in a Spike Jones recording. One of the edited audio segments purports to be Martin’s “Stop!” But I’ve been in recording studios for 35 years and I hear “Help!” in both recordings, which stands to reason since Zimmerman is losing the fight.

But this is where it gets interesting. The “expert” asserts those 45 seconds aren’t Zimmerman calling for help during the fight, but Martin pleading with Zimmerman not to shoot him AFTER the fighting was over.

So by his reckoning, the fight is concluded. Zimmerman has his gun out. Martin begs for his life for almost a minute and then Zimmerman executes him in cold blood.

But lab results reveal the gunshot was so close it burned Martin’s skin. We know there was a single shot. If the entry wound is low and travels upward, it supports Zimmerman. But even without that information, if the fight was over and Martin was pleading for his life, chances are he would have been backing or running away, putting distance between himself and Zimmerman.

Common sense would dictate waiting for the evidence and using practical experience to evaluate it, but the Post, along with the majority of the media, has already found Zimmerman guilty and they want us to join them.