From Steven Hayes, the Obama's previous spin -- no, not spin; direct, to-your-face lies for political gain-- has come undone.

I don't think I can ad much to this and will not try. I will note this, though: Steve Hayes' article uses as its starting point a timeline of statements by the administration -- heavy on "spontaneous" incident due to "that film" until the past few days -- which was put together by the Washington Post's "Fact Checker," Glenn Kessler.

In fact, it runs under his "Fact Checker" byline.

He refuses to check the facts, though:

Kessler writes: “We will leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions on whether this is merely the result of the fog of war and diplomacy — or a deliberate effort to steer the storyline away from more politically damaging questions. After all, in a competitive election, two weeks is a lifetime.”

The entire point of his "Fact Checker" gig is to test the truthfulness of statements offered by high political officials, but in this case -- where the Obama administration has plainly said untrue things for two weeks (by their own sudden admission) he says the reader can pass judgment on their own, and helpfully offers Obama an "out" -- "fog of war."

But it wasn't fog of war. They know from almost the first hours that this was a planned attack, which included attacks from indirect-fire mortars which require a fair amount of skill to aim.

Further, they were not tentative in their conclusions as a "fog of war" situation would suggest they should be -- instead, they were very certain that this was not a planned attack (despite occurring on September 11th and having the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda attack). They said so repeatedly.

What they said, again and again, with perfect confidence, was:

1. This was spontaneous attack no one could possibly have seen coming (so it's not our fault).

2. There was no actionable intelligence whatsoever suggesting a September 11th attack (so it's not our fault).

3. The consulate had the right amount of security, despite everyone inside it being massacred (so it's not our fault).

And Glenn Kessler's "Fact Check"? Readers will have to make of this what they will.

So when you wonder why these "Fact Checkers" rate Democratic claims as absolutely true twice as often as Republican ones, and Republican claims absolutely false twice as often as Democratic ones, keep this in mind: When Glenn Kessler has a series of Administration statements which were quite clearly false, by their own admission, he does not render a Fact Check at all, but invites the reader to conduct his own, but always keeping "fog of war" in mind.

Or as Fact Check might call it, if it bothered with a fact check: Entirely false, but see, it's not their fault!

Which is the overall message they're selling: Not our fault.

These are the same fact checkers which will call a Romney statement -- like the fact that gas prices have doubled since Obama took over -- false, because, even while literally true, they don't think the implication is fair.

Here, the Administration's statements were both literally false (it was not spontaneous) and false in implication (it was, then, not unforeseeable, and steps could and should have been taken), and Glenn Kessler says "No comment."

Posted by: Ace at 12:45 PM | Comments (307)
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm sure they just thought these photos were nice.

So, apart from saluting the German Reich (according to neutral reporting agencies Reuters and AP), what else did Netanyahu do?

Well, one thing is he displayed a picture of a bomb and indicated how close Iran is to achieving a nuke:

He drew the red line to indicate that Iran needs "Red Lines" imposed on them, lines that they must not cross. Something he's been pleading for from Obama, and is of course not getting. Because Obama has more important things to discuss with Barbara Walters and David Letterman.

Netanyahu argued that Red Lines do not cause war, they avoid it, by clearly telling a hostile country what steps it cannot take if it wishes to avoid war.

The media insists on calling Netanyahu's display "cartoonish" (and then they chuckle, "literally cartoonish."

Oh, like yoouuu! You're too cute. You get over here, g-friend. Let's look at some shoes!

More on the speech, from Breitbart.

“The Jewish State will live forever,” he said defiantly. “The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again.”

Netanyahu then attacked the battle of ideologies that has culminated in the current standoff with an Iranian regime bent on destruction of Israel. The battle, he said, was “modern versus medieval.” “These forces clash around the world,” said Netanyahu. He added that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ “libelous” language about Israel did not forward the peace process.

Then Netanyahu got to the meat of the matter. A nuclear-armed Iran, said Netanyahu, would be analogous to a nuclear-armed al Qaeda. “Given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons … imagine them with nuclear weapons,” he said. Diplomacy, Netanyahu noted, had failed. More than that, diplomacy had granted Iran an additional period to complete its nuclear development.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama has decided that Israel, the US, and the world will have to/can live with a nuclear armed Iran.

And if a country or two is nuked... ah well. Such things happen.

He just hasn't said so. He needs "flexibility" for his actual foreign policy. The thing he gets after an election.

Posted by: Ace at 11:39 AM | Comments (278)
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Did her mother tell her she was 1/32nd Massachusetts lawyer, because she had high cheekbones like all other bar-certified Massachusetts lawyers?

This story is not as old as you may be thinking. There's a new twist.

First, Legal Insurrection noted that Warren was representing clients in Massachusetts without actually being a barred lawyer in Massachusetts.

That story got knocked down, sort of, because people contended that's not a problem. Federal courts make up their own rules about what lawyers can appear before them, and they permit lawyers from whatever state to argue cases that are about federal issues and Constitutional law.

The idea is that state bar laws can't dictate to a federal court who they may entertain when federal law and Constitutional law are in play.

Okay.

But now Legal Insurrection, which just won't give up on skull-f***ing Elizabeth Warren (are those cheekbones hard to maneuver around?), has dug up a case where she seems to be representing a Massachusetts client in a case about Massachusetts state law.

One of Warren's previous defenders -- someone who argued with LI previously about this -- has jumped ship and praised LI for their diligence.

Professor Jacobson has uncovered this morning a case in which Elizabeth Warren entered an appearance in a federal appellate court as a representative of a Massachusetts client in a case that appears to have clearly implicated Massachusetts law. Although this is still a federal appellate court, because weÂ’re dealing with a Massachusetts client and issues of Massachusetts law, this looks really, really bad for Professor Warren. With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak.

I want to know more about her work fighting compensation for victims of asbestos.

As reported earlier by Globe reporter Noah Bierman, Travelers hired Warren to represent the insurance company in its fight to gain permanent immunity from asbestos-related lawsuits; in exchange for that immunity, the insurance company said it would establish a $500 million trust for current and future victims of asbestos poisoning. Warren succeeded in that mission, successfully arguing Travelers case before the U.S. Supreme Court. She was paid $212,000 by Travelers from 2008 to 2010.

However, after she left the case, a separate court ruled that Travelers did not have to pay out the money and it never has. As one judge saw it, Travelers got “something for nothing.”

Posted by: Ace at 11:13 AM | Comments (157)
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

So. Cam Newton had a great rookie season last year and was over-praised, as many rookies with a great (rookie) season are. This year, he's not faring as well.

In a 36-7 loss to the Giants, a team captain chided him for "sulking" on the bench. Obviously, a team leader can't be doing that.

Note that the "Smith" here is also "Steve Smith," but he's not the same Steve A. Smith from the headline. The Smith who gets on Newton hear is a top-flight veteran receiver.

After Newton threw his third interception with 6:36 remaining in the game, backup quarterback Derek Anderson began warming up on the sideline. Anderson came in with about a minute left for the final series.

“I watched D.A. and Jimmy (Clausen), they don't play in 20-something games last year. And they get up and they observe and learn and get those mental reps,” Smith said. “I told him, 'You can get some mental reps or you can sit on that bench and sulk.'”

Smith, a team captain, said he used some “unchoice words” with Newton, who was criticized last year for putting a towel over his head and sitting on the bench at the end of losses.

This is the second time in as many seasons the Panthers' captains have talked to Newton about his demeanor. Offensive linemen Jordan Gross and Ryan Kalil took Newton aside last year and said he needed to bring more positive energy to the huddle.

For what it's worth, Steve Smith (the receiver) is black.

Now, Cam Newton has previously pouted and moped in the previous season, by his own admission. And by his own admission, he said he was a "bad teammate" last season and vowed to do better.

So Steve Smith (the receiver) was getting on him about backsliding on that promise.

So, a Charlotte newspaper ran this editorial cartoon about Newton:

Newton does a Superman pose when he scores, so this parodies that.

So, not really a story here, right? Same old same old: A talented, but callow, rookie is being a bad teammate, perhaps a little selfish, and not really a leader, and is having a sophomore slump, and the local media pounces.

As they always have. The media really only has two stories: YOU'RE FANTASTIC! and YOU'RE HORRIBLE! The middle possibilities -- "You are performing below expectations but not really all that badly" -- just doesn't sell papers, and never has. (Note they are using this non-selling headline with Obama, because the truth of it -- YOU'RE HORRIBLE! -- would crush his chances).

Now this isn't really a story at all. It's boring. I am bored by all I have written above. If you have a life, even a little bit, you are bored by it as well.

But some people find it very, very exciting indeed. ESPN (which is having a banner day) has an idiot named Steve A. Smith who thinks it's... racism.

Actually, he doesn't think it's racism. He's certain of it. He feels it in his bones. And he's angry at white people who attempt to "define" racism for African-Americans. See, only African-Americans can define racism, and they are (or at least one is) defining racism as a Hello Kitty t-shirt cartoon about a black quarterback who has previously been yelled at for mopery by his teammates and has just been taken to task about it by his veteran team-captain black all-time-all-star receiver.

It becomes racism the moment a White Person notices, especially in the South (which is 75% of Steven A. Smith's argument).

Steve Smith (the receiver) can notice that Newton is relapsing into his bad old sulky mopery ways, but you're not allowed to. Because agreeing with Steve Smith, who is black, would be racist, if you're White.

He's permitted to comment, you are not. He has that right based on skin color; your skin color, on the other hand, strips you of that right.

Who's the racist here, again?

Video below. Here's the link.

Punked: Steven A. Smith had a silly article written about him in The Onion -- parodying his insipid "Let's have an argument about everything" schtick -- and he got very angry about the various inaccuracies in the "reportage," not realizing The Onion is fake and so is every story in it.

He rebuts, forcefully, the allegation that he has a 9 year old son and soon will give him "The Argument" (not "The Talk," but "The Argument") about the birds and bees.

"It’s a big milestone in every father-son relationship to sit your child down and dispute his pathetic ideas about the birds and bees,” said Smith, fondly remembering his own father belligerently talking over him when he got the sex argument as a boy. “He’s at that age where he’s starting to hear some things about sex at school, so it’s important for me as a parent to corner him on his logical inconsistencies and force him to admit he doesn’t have the experience to know what the hell he’s talking about.”

So this was an article parodying this jackass' jackass belief in his power to argue every stupid thing that drifts into his cavernous skull, and what did Steven A. Smith do?

He argued about it.

Thanks to JackStraw.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (268)
Post contains 906 words, total size 6 kb.

Romney's such a nut to claim a large swathe of America has an entitlement mentality and thinks the government exists to give them free stuff.

He might also have noted that some Americans hate other Americans so much they shrug off their murders with the sneer, "He probably had it coming."

I can't tell if he says "He probably had it coming" or "We probably had it coming." Means the same thing, either way-- his murder was justified.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (376)
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

"Red zone."

I can only express my disgust so many times -- this is huge, and the media is embargoing it entirely.

U.S. economic growth is dangerously slow. IÂ’ve frequently written about research from the Fed which finds that since 1947, when two-quarter annualized real GDP growth falls below 2%, recession follows within a year 48% of the time. And when year-over-year real GDP growth falls below 2%, recession follows within a year 70% of the time.

And it's not just Pethokoukis' research:

Citigroup has also taken a shot at determining the stall speed: “Specifically, when U.S. growth has cut below 1½ percent on a rolling four-quarter basis, it has tended to fall by nearly 3 percentage points over the following four quarters, and the economy has typically entered recession.

Now, two quarters (rather than four) of sub-2% growth leads to a recession 48% of the time; the last two quarters have averaged 1.6%.

Growth the past two quarters has averaged about 1.6%. Not only does this mean the economy is growing more slowly than last yearÂ’s 1.8%, it is also slow enough to signal about a 50% chance of a recession within a year. And the third quarter also looks weak.

More from economists: "It's all unraveling."

So, the media isn't going to cover the economy, and it isn't going to cover foreign policy.

It will not cover the lack of prosperity, and to even things out, it will also not cover the lack of peace.

Wonder what they do intend to cover.

Oh, right.

What about your gaaaaaffes.

Oh: A better metaphor than "Red Zone" is one that Pethokoukis (and other economists) are talking about -- "Stall Speed." If an economy isn't going forward fast enough, it stalls and falls, like a plane.

Posted by: Ace at 09:13 AM | Comments (270)
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

How do you like your liberal bias -- Original Recipe or Extra Crispy?

Here are five things to know about the return of the regular referees:

1. The negative backlash from the Green Bay Packers' loss to the Seattle Seahawks on "Monday Night Football" pressured the NFL into getting this deal done. With President Obama expressing his disappointment with the replacement officiating and poor officiating being the lead story of network news coverage, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell had to act -- and he did.

Gee, I thought it was because their negotiation strategy had catastrophically failed in a perfect storm, and became something that threatened their brand.

But no, it was because President Oblahblah noticed.

Again, thanks to @benk84. Or as I call him, "Hot Air 2."

Posted by: Ace at 08:41 AM | Comments (199)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

@benk84 mentioned the downward revision to 2nd Quarter GDP, from 1.7% to 1.3% (a huge chop), and durable good orders dropped 13.2% (even huger).

New orders for long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods in August fell by the most in 3-1/2 years, pointing to a sharp slowdown in factory activity even as a gauge of planned business spending rebounded.

The index they're talking about went up 1.1% after two months of "hefty declines." I would not call that a "rebound."

The Commerce Department said on Thursday durable goods orders dived 13.2 percent, the largest drop since January 2009, when the economy was in the throes of a recession. Orders for July were revised down to show a 3.3 percent increase instead of the previously reported 4.1 percent gain.

The ECRI (a business cycle research institute) notes that most recessions are detected well after they've begun. And they say we're in one now.

But what data supports our recession call? We just discussed what GDP had looked like four years ago. Please note that for each of those two quarters GDP growth has since been revised down by two to three percentage points. Those are huge revisions.

Likewise, GDP growth prints for each of the first two quarters of the two prior recessions were revised by about two to four percentage points. The takeaway is that, in the early stages of recession, the data are almost always revised down, and the revisions tend to be quite substantial near business cycle turning points.

Knowing this, how should we feel about the current GDP estimates that average less than a 2% pace for the first half of 2012, i.e., weaker than first-half GDP growth looked four years ago? Please remember, by that time, in September 2008, the economy had already spent nine months in recession.

In the current cycle retail sales have already peaked back in March 2012 and, according to the household survey, employment has declined for the last two months, and for four of the last six months.

Santelli calls the numbers depressingly weak.

So... yay, Obama?

Posted by: Ace at 08:07 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.

• If Romney Said This, The Media Would Declare His Campaign Over
  
  
• Samuel L. Jackson's Expletive Laden Obama Ad
  
  
• Second Quarter GDP Revised Down
  
  
• Pat Sajak Cracks Subtle Obama Joke During Show
  
  
• 15 Days After Benghazi Attack And The FBI Still Isn't Investigating
  
  
• Police Chief Resigns Leaving Just A Dog On The Force. This Has Perfect Sitcom Plot Written All Over It
  
  
• New Christian Voter Guide Lands In Swing States
  
  
• CNBC Host: Why Is The Media Ignoring Obama's Gaffes
  
  
• Did Elizabeth Warren Represent A Massachusetts Client In Massachusetts
  
  
• Atlantic Writer: Why I Refuse To Vote For Obama
  
  
• Voting Starts In Iowa
  
  
• ESPN Credits Obama With Ending The Ref Lockout (Warning autoplay video)
  
  
• Why Mitt Romney Isn't Going To Get Blown Out
  
  
• Even Biased Polls Show Romney Winning Independents
  
  
• Obama's On The Job Training Not Going Very Well
  
  
• Coming Crisis To Make Japans Lost Decade Look Like A Cake Walk
  

Note: The first debate is seven days from now. For a lot of low information Americans, this will be the first time they see Mitt Romney speak for himself. Up until now they only saw him through the media's filter. He'll finally get to speak directly to the American people. Remember, Obama is a SCOAMF. Don't believe me? Go back and watch the McCain v. Obama debates. He isn't a good off script speaker.

Follow me on Twitter

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:11 AM | Comments (559)
Post contains 234 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Thursday.

We're not even in silly season anymore. Now it's just stupid season. Tell me the one again about how nation-class politicians aren't good communicators. It's such a hah-hah.

Economists fret (or gloat, alternately) that China's slowdown may be permanent. Economists can be such bitches.

I absolutely adore when pundits describe a candidate who is flying all over the country, making three stump speeches a day, attending fundraisers, filming ads, doing TV interviews, and simultaneously prepping for the debates as needing "new energy." Wait, no I don't.

This is the inverse complaint from the Fred Thompson primary campaign of five years ago. Then, the candidate said plenty of right things, but just didn't seem that interested in the day-to-day slog of campaigning. This time, the candidate is going all-out campaigning, but GOP pundits don't like the message. NEWSFLASH: Mitt Romney is the candidate. Glad you noticed. Now, try and keep up.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:53 AM | Comments (383)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.