Mark Levin Suing EPA to Disclose Devastating Regulations it Intends to Implement After Election

As we reported yesterday, the EPA has prepared numerous new regulations for implementation after the November election that would effectively destroy the US economy.

Today, the Daily Caller reports that Mark Levin’s legal group, Landmark Legal Foundation, is suing the EPA to force the agency to disclose what regulations it intends to implement after November:

Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin’s legal group is suing the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain documents pertaining to the regulations the agency plans to implement after the election.

Levin’s law firm, the Landmark Legal Foundation, filed the lawsuit in federal court this week, seeking a court order directing the EPA to preserve and produce all records related to the agency’s regulatory plans after the presidential election.

The suit argues that news stories and political observers have indicated the EPA is “intentionally delaying the issuance of controversial new regulations until after the November election” with the possibility that “a) the Obama Administration is improperly politicizing EPA activities; b) EPA officials are attempting to shield their true policy goals from the public; and/or c) EPA officials themselves are putting partisan interests above the public welfare.”

In August, Landmark, via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, sought all the records dealing with rules and regulations from Jan. 1 to Aug. 17, 2012 that have not been finalized. The EPA acknowledged receipt of the request in August, but denied the group’s request to expedite the process.

Landmark appealed the denial, the EPA again refused to expedite the process this week.

New Head of NY Times Protected Child Molesting Colleague from Investigative Documentary While Head of BBC? (+video)

In another case of apparent media malpractice, the New York Times recently hired the former Director of the BBC, Mark Thompson, to take over as CEO starting next month. Shortly after the announcement of his hire, a story broke in the UK concerning Mr. Thompson’s long-time BBC colleague, Sir Jimmy Savile, alleging that he had been suspected of the sexual abuse of children for decades, including the 15 years that he worked at the BBC with Mr. Thompson.

For thirty years, ending in the mid-90’s, Savile was a wildly popular host of a number of children’s and teen shows in Britain. He had been knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

The current controversy erupted just a little over two weeks ago when BBC’s competitor, Britain’s commercial broadcast channel ITV, aired a documentary on numerous allegations against of sexual molestation of minors by Savile. Some of the horrendous sexual assaults allegedly occurred while Savile was employed by BBC, on BBC property.

The problem with Thompson is that, while Thompson was in charge of BBC, BBC’s program Newsnight conducted its own investigation into Savile’s sexual abuse of children, but never broadcast the report. Thompson claims that he never directed that the investigative report not be broadcast and, in fact, asserts that he didn’t even know that the sordid allegations against Savile had been made.

A major BBC actor said two days ago that Thompson’s denials that he didn’t know about the sex abuse allegations against Savile are false: ‘You worked at the BBC and you don’t know anything about it? Don’t be ridiculous. That is absolute nonsense.”

Creating more pressure on Thompson, the UK Daily Mail reported yesterday that on a Sunday program, “the BBC ‘censored’ a series of emails that indicated senior executives were involved in the decision to axe a Newsnight investigation into Savile.”

The director of BBC’s Newsnight asserts that Thompson had nothing to do with the decision not to air the investigative report but that, instead, Savile’s death in December 2011 convinced the BBC not to air anything as Savile was no longer alive to defend himself.

The Sydney Morning Herald Reported that there are now a “staggering number of victims in Savile inquiry.” The alleged victims were not only involved with the BBC but also came from children’s homes and hospitals. The fact that institutions were allegedly involved in Savile’s child rapes lead some to believe that his actions could not have possibly occurred without the knowledge and/or cooperation of various British authorities.

Here’s the ITV documentary on the alleged abuse by Savile:

Obama’s Snarky Debate Response About Horses & Bayonets (+video)

Obama’s approach to tonight’s debate may have misfired on him. Many of his responses seemed snarky and small.

One example was his response to Romney’s concern about the incredibly shrinking size of our nation’s navy. Romney explained that the US Navy will be down to almost two hundred ships in the next presidential term if things continue.

Romney also cited the size and aging character of the US air force. Although he didn’t do so, Romney could have mentioned that the backbone of our strategic bomber force, the B-52 Stratofortress, was originally designed in the 1940’s but is still in service today.

Obama’s response did not effectively confront any of these concerns. Moreover, it was factually erroneous with respect to bayonets — I trained with them at West Point and they are still standard issue to some military units.

Turns out, Obama was even wrong about the horses.

See Obama’s childish (and erroneous) failure to address the contention that the US military’s aging infrastructure will only grow worse under a second Obama term:

Iran’s News Agencies Say Obama Acknowledged its Nuclear Rights, Didn’t Want to Impose Sanctions & Warns of Romney Vote Fraud

In a curious article in Iran’s semi-official news agency FARS today, Iran is claiming that Obama not only acknowledged Iran’s right to pursue nuclear technology, but also did not want to impose sanctions on Iran explaining he had to because of congressional action:

Swiss Ambassador to Tehran Livia Leu Agosti attended a meeting with senior Iranian foreign ministry officials a few days ago to submit a letter from the US president to Tehran leaders.

Vice-Chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Hossein Ebrahimi told FNA that during the meeting, Agosti had told the Iranian officials that President Barack Obama recognizes Iran’s right of access and use of the nuclear technology.

“There are a couple of points with regard to this (US) message (to Iran),” Ebrahimi said and added, “Firstly, during the session to submit the message, the Swiss ambassador to Tehran quoted the US president as saying that ‘we (the US) recognize your nuclear rights’.”

As regards the second issue, the lawmaker said that the Swiss diplomat had also quoted Obama as saying that “I didn’t want to impose sanctions on your central bank but I had no options but to approve it since a Congress majority had approved the decision.”

Although FARS is by no means a reliable news source, the above statements become a bit more interesting in view of Iran’s statement this weekend in defense of Obama, suggesting that Romney is getting ready to steal the election from him:

Iran’s government mouthpiece Press TV is panicking over the prospect of a defeat for President Barack Obama and warns that Mitt Romney will steal the election through “black-box” voting machines that “manufacture election outcomes.”

It also charged that the polls – virtually all of which now show Romney in the lead or at least in a dead heat – are fraudulent.

Video: ‘Hating Breitbart’ Movie Opens This Weekend

The movie ‘Hating Breitbart’ has opened this weekend. The production is a fair documentary of Andrew Breitbart’s struggle against the mainstream media and his effective command of the new, Internet-based media.

The movie’s producer says that Breitbart recognized that the era of the “monopoly of the newsroom” had ended and successfully harnessed the ubiquitous blogosphere to penetrate the LSM’s bias.

He was hated, and so successful, because he was also an expert at deconstructing the narrative of the left. That allowed him to “delegitimize” the liberal media.

Although its release was apparently delayed, the movie was completed while Breitbart was still living. The following YouTube is an interview with ‘Hating Breitbart’s’ producer:

Video: NBC News Now Using Halloween Mask Sales to Predict Obama Win

Now that all of the polling nationwide is showing Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney in the lead, NBC has turned to the scientific “Halloween mask sales” statistic to predict a President Barrack Obama reelection. Seriously.

The only problem is, the NBC Today Show relied on statistics that are at least three weeks old.

Hear the NBC discussion on this “scientific” approach to predicting November’s victor:

Video: Who’s Going to Win in November? Karl Rove Disagrees With the Experts

Although Larry Sabato and other political experts all contend that it’s anybody’s guess as to who will win the next month, Karl Rove vigorously disagrees.

In this Fox News interview, Rove says that Romney has moved to above 50% support among likely voters for the first time in the race.

Rove contends that there has never a past US election where a candidate for president has lost while at 50% or above among likely voters in mid-October.

Why Romney Is Now Winning With Women

I still remember the day that I learned the most important lesson a man can ever learn about women. It was the first semester of my sophomore year of college. My girlfriend had broken up with me the last semester of the previous year and I still hadn’t figured out why. I had begged her to stay. I told her that I was nothing without her and even cried in front of her. But she still left me for another guy.

What I didn’t understand was that when she had tried to break up with me just a month before, the emasculation of myself seemed to work wonders. She decided we’d give it another try and things seemed to go back to normal. But at the end of that month, she wasn’t snookered by my antics.

Don’t misunderstand, I wasn’t faking. I felt like my world was ending and that she alone held the key to my happiness in life. So it was easy to cry and tell her that I “dwelled in darkness without her.” But I allowed myself to do it because I thought it would work. I thought that getting sympathy could buy me some points with the gentler sex.

I thought that right up until the day I took mental inventory of my recent experiences with women. Since I’d been back as a sophomore, women had been treating me differently. The ones I thought were out of my league were inviting me to have lunch with them. Senior girls were taking walks across campus with me simply because they saw me passing by. Two girls who I’d been friends with for over a year were literally feuding over the “rights” to me to the point that they stopped being roommates.

What had changed? I had. Rather than being a soft spoken weenie whose only skill with women was attempting to solicit sympathy, I had improved myself. I didn’t do it to “get chicks” or win back the girl who’d dumped me. I did it for me. I’d begun a part-time business, started back lifting weights with a buddy, and reunited with friends I had basically ignored when I was infatuated the year before.

I’d become someone that girls wanted to date because I was going places, had a life outside of any one woman, was physically stronger, knew how to have fun and the “looks decent wagon” hadn’t passed me by. I’d earned it.

When I’d cried and begged my ex to stay, she stayed for a little bit because she felt sorry for me. So she felt good in giving me another chance that I really didn’t deserve. But that never works long term. It’s like a sympathy date in high school, it’s a short term relationship because it’s based on sympathy, not attraction and love.

So what does this have to do with Mitt Romney closing the gender gap with Barack Obama? Simple, Obama was a sympathy date in 2008.

He hadn’t earned anything. He had been a senator for less than two years when he started campaigning. He rose to the top because women got warm feelings by voting for him. They felt like they did him a favor. He wasn’t qualified. He hadn’t earned what he got by having a record of successes to point to (or much of any record at all).

But as I said above, the sympathy date is temporary just like the sympathy reconciliation I received. This is especially true of Obama when women are able to see the resume of Mitt Romney. Romney has never been anything but a winner. He’s wealthy, not because he sold a book based on unearned and faddish popularity but because he turned around failing businesses and took the Olympics from debt to profit. He won the governorship of Massachusetts and actually balanced the budget instead of just talking about it – a rare feat these days. He persevered and won the nomination of his party and now he’s standing up to someone who doesn’t have successes to under his belt. In fact, Obama is in a similar spot to where I was the second time my girlfriend tried to break up with me. I relied on what had worked before because that’s all I had. But sympathy didn’t work the second time. She wanted a winner. She wanted a man who had things going for him and was a strong leader in life.

So when women are faced with the choice between a man who’s using the same ole “give me another chance” line she’s heard from him before and a man who doesn’t need another chance because he’s already done the things Obama couldn’t, they’ll likely pick the man who’s already a winner in his own right. The sympathy date rarely happens more than once. And the same is true for the sympathy vote when the country is in need of someone who can actually do what needs to be done.

Video: Fox’s Focus Group Member Calls Bullsh*t on Obama During Live Broadcast

In a massive “oops” moment by Fox, one of the focus group members who had voted for Obama in 2008 was asked about his current impressions of the president and let loose with a profanity.

The clearly agitated man noted that he had voted for Obama before, but that was because he had been “lied to” by Obama. He’s obviously not making the same mistake twice:

He’s lied about everything. He lied to get elected in 2008, that’s why I voted for him. I bought it. Bull. And, he’s lied about everything. He hasn’t come through on anything. And he’s been bullsh**ting the public with the media behind him.

Fact Checking Romney’s Claim that Production of Oil on Public Lands is Down (+video)

One of the most intense exchanges of the night arose over the question of permitting and oil production on public lands.

In the segment below, Romney claimed that hydrocarbon production on government land is down. He stated that oil production is down 14% and gas production is down 9%.

Although Obama vigorously denied this, the Washington Post states that “Romney’s telling the truth when he says, ‘Production of oil on public land is down 14 percent and production of gas on public land is down 9 percent.’ That’s because energy production on federal lands is down compared to 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration.” However, the Post adds that production is “still higher than where production stood under President George W. Bush.”

The National Journal has a different take because it evaluated three years of production (2008 to 2011) rather than comparing just the last two years. By reviewing production over the longer range, it found both candidates were right and wrong: “Oil production on public lands is up 12 percent from 2008 to 2011, according to a March report by the Energy Information Administration…Natural-gas production on public lands is down 16.5 percent between 2008 and 2011, according to the same EIA report…Coal production on public lands is down 7.8 percent from 2008 to 2011.”