The American Pundit

Congressman Mike McMahon (D-NY): Political genius.

Mike Grimm, a G.O.P challenger for Mike McMahon’s Congressional seat, took in over $200,000 in his last filing.

But in an effort to show that Grimm lacks support among voters in the district, which covers Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, the McMahon campaign compiled a list of Jewish donors to Grimm and provided it to The Politicker.

The file, labeled “Grimm Jewish Money Q2,” for the second quarter fundraising period, shows a list of over 80 names, a half-dozen of which in fact do hail from Staten Island, and a handful of others that list Brooklyn as home.

“Where is Grimm’s money coming from,” said Jennifer Nelson, McMahon’s campaign spokeman. “There is a lot of Jewish money, a lot of money from people in Florida and Manhattan, retirees.”

Idea for the McMahon campaign’s next advertising spot: McMahon wearing Colonial-style clothing, on horseback, riding through the countryside and yelling, “The Jews are coming! The Jews are coming!”

Seriously though, the spin is just sad:

Nelson stressed that the point of compiling the list was not to show that Grimm had a lot of Jewish support, but that he had little support in the district.

“I don’t think ethnicity matters. When people look at who is funding his campaign it’s not people who have a direct vested interest [in the district.]“

Really? That’s what you’re going with? Ethnicity doesn’t matter? That kind of runs contrary to the list you put out entitled, “Grimm Jewish Money Q2″. Jewish money. Not extra-constituency money. Jewish money. Clearly ethnicity was a factor in the campaign’s attack.

Via Ace.

The Obama Administration has made plans to enact amnesty for illegal aliens regardless of how Congress decides to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. A memo circulating on Capitol Hill shows the Department of Homeland Security preparing to ignore the will of the duly elected representatives of the American people.

According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.

“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.

Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”

In short, the Obama Administration will decide to give illegal aliens amnesty through executive decree. Congress doesn’t want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens? The American people oppose amnesty for illegal aliens? Jesus Christ himself comes back to Earth and announces his opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens? Who cares! Barack Obama, golfer-in-chief, will grant de facto amnesty anyway.

Why? Because we’re talking potentially millions of new Democratic voters. Let’s be honest: Some illegal aliens-turned-citizens may vote Republican, but the vast majority will vote for liberal Democrats. Social issues are nice and all, but they will be trumped by fiscal issues and the size of government. Obama and his Democratic allies can’t win over the current voting population, so they’re looking to add more friendly voters to the rolls.

Absolutely despicable. Congressional Republicans need to make this a major issue and demand answers from the White House. Amnesty by executive decree simply isn’t acceptable.

Like many blogosphere conservatives, I’ve never been a fan of the F-35 fighter jet. I much preferred the continued production of the advanced F-22 Raptor to the late, over budget, and substandard F-35. But for now at least, that fight is over. Maybe things will change with new leadership in Washington, but again — finished for now.

All of that said, the F-35 is undeniably a new piece of advanced military technology. So should we really be selling it to Turkey? Michael Rubin:

Precisely because the F-35 will be the fighter the U.S. Air Force will most depend on to maintain air superiority in the decades ahead, the decision to sell F-35s toTurkey , whose future foreign policy orientation is in question, should be reviewed by appropriate Defense Department elements to assess possible loss of critical technology to states of concern. Congress should mandate that review, specify that it be completed within the year, and then make it available to the appropriate committees of Congress.

In short, Turkey has been anything but friendly lately to the United States and its greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel. We have watched as Ankara positions itself further into the Muslim world than in the west, even backing a terror flotilla to Israel in an attempt to frame itself as a hero for Palestinians.

So all things considered, should we really be selling this same country our latest advanced fighter jet? Is it really wise to transfer this technology to a nation that has worked to align itself with our enemies and may internally be moving towards Islamization? I don’t think so.

Turkey is a member of NATO and has historically been an ally to the west. A secular country, Turkey has sought membership in the European Union. But things have undeniably been changing as of late. And the way we view the safety of our advanced technology once transferred to Turkey must change as well.

The White House expects the federal government to run-up a $1.47 trillion deficit this year — a new record for the fiscally disastrous leadership in Washington. According to the Associated Press, that means the federal government will have to borrow 41 cents for every dollar it spends.

And that’s not the only bad news. Get ready for long-term high unemployment:

The new estimates paint a grim unemployment picture as the economy experiences a relatively jobless recovery. The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates.

And here’s some ominous news for Democrats: By 2012, the Office of Management and Budget expects the average unemployment rate to be about 8.1% — a rate still higher than Obama promised after passage of the $787 billion stimulus package.

In short: Things are so bad in the economy that Republicans will be able to run on fiscal and employment issues in the next presidential election. In fact, if these predictions come to fruition, Republicans will still be able to run partially on the failure of the stimulus package alone. Never mind an unemployment rate several points higher than the historical average.

Van Jones, the former green jobs czar for the Obama Administration who was forced to resign after it was revealed he believed the Bush Administration intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, received quite a warm welcome at the annual gathering of online liberal activists.

In fact, the self-described Communist was called a “hero” by former DNC chairman Howard Dean before being given a standing ovation by the audience. One lefty journalist who interviewed Jones onstage insisted he was only targeted because he is a black progressive rather than his belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories and admitted Marxist ideology.

Philip Klein reports that Jones again called for investment in “green” technology and dismissed concerns about the $1.4 trillion deficit.

Video at the link.

Seriously, at one point they discussed an intervention. Some even compared him to Bill O’Reilly, which I supposed is an insult on the left.

You have to stay with it until the end. Or at least until the part where the lefties accuse him of misogyny and call him a blowhard. Comedy gold.

Good thing it’s the Republicans who are the party of the rich, huh? Those Democrats are just men and women of the people. People with $30,000 laying around.

Sneed hears real estate mogul Neil Bluhm is tossing a private birthday party here for President Obama, who turns 49 on Aug. 4.

The shocker: The dinner invite to the Barack bash at Bluhm’s home requires a $30,000 donation to the Democratic National Committee!

An early happy birthday to the golfer-in-chief.

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t know where to begin. The hypocrisy, the blatantly obvious lesson about how higher taxes drive people elsewhere…it’s all just so juicy.

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

Isabel – Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage – was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.

But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern.

So, Senator Kerry, tell us, why are you going to spend your money docking the Isabel in Rhode Island rather than your home state of Massachusetts?

Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven – like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau – for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners?

Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

Ah, I see. So a couple of things here.

First of all, I’m shocked — shocked — to discover that one of America’s most prominent liberals is not willing to pay higher taxes for the benefit of the masses. In fact, it appears that this very wealthy man will use his vast wealth to avoid paying the same taxes that every other less-wealthy schmuck is forced to pony up.

Second, we now have a perfect example of higher taxes driving business and revenue elsewhere. Massachusetts had a higher tax rate than Rhode Island, so where did John Kerry take his business? Did he just grin-and-bear the higher tax rate of Massachusetts? No, he’s now paying to dock his yacht in Rhode Island. There’s a lesson about economic policy in there somewhere.

Exit question: 1) Why is John Kerry unpatriotic? 2) Why does John Kerry hate children?

Fair warning: The following is a sometimes-incoherent, badly-written rant.

But of course. After all, it’s not like we’re spending the money on something important like expanding welfare or naming another unused airport after a Congressman. We’re only talking about money spent on defending the nation and making sure we keep up technologically with Russia and China.

How very typical of the Democratic Party. We have a $1.4 trillion deficit, $13 trillion in debt, $109 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities, and Democrats are adding new entitlement programs like they’re free. And so what’s the solution to reduce the federal budget? Let’s cut defense spending.

You know, an area with which the United States Constitution specifically charges the federal government. I’ve looked and I can’t find an explicit constitutional basis for welfare, nor can I find one for local airports named after corrupt dead members of the House. Members who were, let’s face it, assholes.

But what does any of that matter? It’s more important to prop-up welfare recipients than make sure our Navy and Air Force have the tools necessary to protect the United States from modern enemies.

After all, today’s liberals rarely find anyone to be “good” or “bad” (except conservatives, who are undeniably bad). Those countries like Iran and North Korea? Just different. Get with the global progressive trend, man.

But here’s the best part. The best freaking part:

Two-thirds of Pentagon spending is on personnel costs. It is possible that the Pentagon will have to look for the first time at cuts to the health benefits provided to active and retired military personnel and their families.

Some analysts said the Pentagon would eventually come under pressure to reduce the size of the armed forces.

We just created a new government-run health care plan for the lazy and illegal. Even mention the possibility of denying hospital care to illegal aliens and the left will howl. Even suggest cutting Medicaid and you’ll be driven out of town with torches and pitchforks.

But we’ll look at cutting health benefits for active and retired service members. Because what do they matter when there are welfare recipients to support? And airports to name after corrupt politicians?

Republicans didn’t oppose extending unemployment benefits for out-of-work Americans. They opposed extending the benefits without first finding a way to pay for them without adding to the national deficit and debt.

Democrats didn’t want to find a way to actually pay for the extension, so they demonized Republicans and eventually rammed the legislation through unfunded.

CBS News’ Mark Knoller:

“Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that,” [Obama] said.

He portrayed Republicans as hypocrites for demanding that jobless benefits be paid for but not applying the same standard to their call for an extension of Bush Administration tax cuts that will expire this year.

“So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed,” the president said last Saturday in his radio/internet address.

But Republicans were quick to remind Mr. Obama what he said after signing a previous extension of unemployment benefits on November 6th of last year.

“Now, it’s important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible,” he said.

So eight months ago, he said paying for the benefits was the right thing to do, but now he sees no need to do so.

Knoller asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about Obama’s hypocrisy, and Gibbs promised to review the quote and get back to Knoller. To the surprise of absolutely no one, Gibbs never got back to the CBS reporter.

Welcome to the era of change. As in, Obama changes his stated positions every few months.